Like the rest of Washington Congressional Budget Office

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

PS -- I think EATLER is either on vacation or unemployed again. He posted some links...figuring out that whole "googling" thing. Lots of time on his hands...

People ask for links, they don't ask for immature pictures you stupid pig.

[grean]

Originally Posted by kehaar

Have you ever read the constitution? Do you believe it has any authority over our Federal Goverment?

The US constitution specifically imposes the duty to:

Run the post office.
Run the patent office.
Defend our country.

on the federal government.


In no part does it give the permission to the federal government to provide parasites with free abortions and birth control. People who believe it does are either:

delusional,
stupid or
fascist

or a combination of all 3.

If you don't like the constitution, change it, like a normal fascisit(see venezuela). At least you will be consistent.

It does say it is to provide for the common welfare. It doesn't get specific. It doesn't even say it should do it at no cost either. But to say it's delusional to argue the government had some duty to provide health care is ridiculous.

You're on a hooker board. You should be thanking god for birth control & abortions.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by grean

It does say it is to provide for the common welfare. It doesn't get specific. It doesn't even say it should do it at no cost either. But to say it's delusional to argue the government had some duty to provide health care is ridiculous.

You're on a hooker board. You should be thanking god for birth control & abortions.

What does being on a hooker board have anything to do with birth control or abortion? Do you fuck these Hos bare back?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

It does say it is to provide for the common welfare. It doesn't get specific. It doesn't even say it should do it at no cost either. But to say it's delusional to argue the government had some duty to provide health care is ridiculous.

You're on a hooker board. You should be thanking god for birth control & abortions.

You might be on to something there, puke green, if you add in "personal responsibility" ... which, everyone knows, is an alien term in your lib-retard philosophy.

[tonyvicksa]

Grean, your not very bright. Both UHC and Aetna had profit of LESS than 4%.

You can't just look at the dollar amount and a < 4% profit is hardly greedy.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Cherie

has no idea on how to do their math and figure the rest of America is a stupid as they are.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...lment-for-2017

but, but , but the CBO says 22 million people will looooooose their healthcare

http://deadline.com/2017/06/senate-t...re-1202119931/

Hey CBO, there appears to be a 10 million person deficit on the amount of people even on OBAMACARE. Other than "lets fool the stupid citizens of the USA" please tell me how this can be.

The CBO does NOT have a math problem. With the ACA citizens get health insurance coverage two different ways.

1. A private plan from the government exchanges. ( 12 million people)

2. Expanded Medicaid ( in 31 out of the 50 states that have it). (11 million people)

The numbers in the link below match up with the numbers in your links.

https://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/...lment-numbers/

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

People ask for links, they don't ask for immature pictures you stupid pig.

So you post some bullshit links and people hand you your stupid ASS, EATLER.

Just because you found the code to post a link doesn't mean you're supporting your position.

That is, if you were to take a position that didn't include cocksucking and barnyard animal sounds.

That's how it works, chunkybutt. Get it?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The CBO does NOT have a math problem. With the ACA citizens get health insurance coverage two different ways.

1. A private plan from the government exchanges. ( 12 million people)

2. Expanded Medicaid ( in 31 out of the 50 states that have it). (11 million people)

The numbers in the link below match up with the numbers in your links.

https://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/...lment-numbers/

She doesn't understand them.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The CBO does NOT have a math problem. With the ACA citizens get health insurance coverage two different ways.

this is just too funny.. CBO do not have a math problem???? yes they do!!! their numbers are off by miles.

they give numbers that are off by 20% to 50% from the actual numbers. CBO is not a reliable outfit to trust numbers with.

[texmwm]

I have no problem with the concept of national health care. Its one of the rare social programs I support. However the ACA was flawed from the start because it gave preference to the insurance companies over the insured.

We have an individual mandate while insurance companies can pick an choose where they provide. If you live in a metropolitan area you will have a lot of affordable options. If you live in a rural area you will have very limited options and no good ones. That is a fact, not an opinion.

In my opinion, this is a primary reason for the 2016 election results.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by grean

The point of the mandate was to create a giant pool, right? If everyone had coverage, including young healthy people who didn't actually use their coverage, that would theoretically lower the median cost of insurance.

Yes, it sucks for young healthy people. However, young healthy people will become old sick people eventually.

I'm not sure why premiums, with the ACA, went up in that case. One possibility could be that there were so many people with pre-existing conditions without insurance who entered the market with the ACA that their costs were still not offset by all the young healthy people who paid but never used thier insurance.

That may be part of the issue.

I think insurance companies were actually just greedy.

I understand car insurance. You might never ever ever use it. There are people who go to their Graves without ever getting in a single fender bender.

Everyone gets sick.

Doctors should be paid lots of money. They have knowledge and the ability to heal us. Not to mention that they spend a third of their lives in school.


Why should a company get to profit off gambling on people's health. It's not a gamble, after all. People will get sick. They make money and make it harder for doctors to heal people.

My guess is that we could cut out the insurance companies that make billions in profit and pay doctors even more money, and provide great health care to everyone. In fact I see companies posting higher ear over year profits after the ACA than before. Not simply millions, but Billions. That's after they paid their executives millions and doctors all of their money.

They made that money by betting on the health of Americans.


If everyone paid a tax and the THE NOT FOR PROFIT federal government then paid the doctors, how is that not better?

Certainly the feds can administer health care for less than a billion dollars in expenses.

If they want to sell electronics or automobiles, or anything else those companies can make as much money as they want!

Companies shouldn't profit off our health.

You were doing good things untll the "if everyone paid a tax and let the NOT FOR PROFIT Federal Government"........

The ACA was designed to take from Peter to pay Paul. Then, the Liberal/ Democrat/ Socialist/Progressives/ could always count on Paul's support.

It's the ultimate tool of Demogoguery. Equal to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society".

"We will have those N-----s voting Democrat for the next 100 years".

[texmwm]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The ACA was designed to take from Peter to pay Paul.

I have to disagree, it was sold as rob from the young to pay for the old. It was designed to rob from rural areas and pay for metropolitan ones. Its semantics either way because it still plays to the liberal base.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The ACA was designed to take from Peter to pay Paul.

Medicare Part D, signed into law by Bush43 does the same thing. Taxpayer funds are used to help poor senior citizens pay for prescriptions that they cannot afford on their own. Bush43 is a republican, right?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Medicare Part D, signed into law by Bush43 does the same thing. Taxpayer funds are used to help poor senior citizens pay for prescriptions that they cannot afford on their own. Bush43 is a republican, right?

Medicare is the Primary Carrier for all Senior Citizens when they reach 65.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Medicare is the Primary Carrier for all Senior Citizens when they reach 65.

No kidding? That's right, and it was determined that "Medicare" didn't do enough for seniors and their prescriptions. So, Bush43 signed into law another bill that helps "Seniors" pay for their prescriptions. You missed the point, Republicans sign into law "entitlements" as well. Now let's see if you can spin that.