If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I'd like to know in the single payer plan who decides what I get and when.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone who isn't trying to also make a profit at the same time as deciding on your future.
This argument is stupid and, in some cases, disingenuous. Same thing as climate change - we know it's a problem, but we won't agree to do anything about it until we can remove every little bit of uncertainty about the scope of the problem. There's a ton of uncertainty about a whole bunch of problems that the GOP is really eager to fix. Voter fraud is one example. The looming menace of trannies in bathrooms is far more hypothetical than climate change. Etc, etc. All these are just excuses.
Good luck with your bew hip. I recommend you shop for that on entropy's computer. Remove all your preexisting conditions from your own browser history so as to reduce your costs.
Good luck with your bew hip. I recommend you shop for that on entropy's computer. Remove all your preexisting conditions from your own browser history so as to reduce your costs.
I think it's a fairly silly exercise to engage in macro policy decisions without some sort of appreciation of the costs and benefits of the decision, including the likelihood of any given range of events. I think absolutely fucking retarded to engage in macro policy decisions based on some low odds worst case scenario.
It's almost as if folks have no inclination whatsoever to actually engage in an honest balancing of costs and benefits.
Next big initiative -- "FREE" College!
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Someone who isn't trying to also make a profit at the same time as deciding on your future.
This argument is stupid and, in some cases, disingenuous. Same thing as climate change - we know it's a problem, but we won't agree to do anything about it until we can remove every little bit of uncertainty about the scope of the problem. There's a ton of uncertainty about a whole bunch of problems that the GOP is really eager to fix. Voter fraud is one example. The looming menace of trannies in bathrooms is far more hypothetical than climate change. Etc, etc. All these are just excuses.
It's not stupid. You trust the federal govt to make these decisions? I trust employers to want better benefits to attract talent more than someone in DC to make a decision on my behalf.
So I don't think it's stupid. A single payer is going to happen. I have no doubt. I think people are naive in what that means.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
I'd like to know in the single payer plan who decides what I get and when.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would probably be similar how care is decided for Medicare, don't you think? Your question kind of implies the US has no practice in doing this, when in fact it's kind of what Medicare is.
I still don't think single payer is destined, the insurance lobby is incredibly strong. A more likely option is the public option where you can opt in to something like Medicare or Medicaid.
Comment