ABC's John Stossel: Requiring Insurance Companies To Drop Pre-Existing Condition Practices is "Welfare"
By Logan Murphy Thursday Aug 06, 2009 1:30pm
ABC's John Stossel is a buffoon of the highest order...and I believe that's being generous. Stossel has long shilled for right wing and corporate interests, and right on cue, he jumps head first into the health care debate and he's not pulling any punches -- Insurance company profits are more important than sick Americans:
"Insurers agreed to abandon some of their most controversial practices, like denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing medical conditions."
That's from the first paragraph of today's New York Times "news" story on health insurance.
Do the Times writers and editors take pride in their economic cluelessness? They take it as fact that denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is "controversial," and that abandoning the practice shows "good will."
In the entire debate over health care reform, I have seen no greater example of why we need a public insurance option (actually, we need a universal plan) than Stossel's blog post.
Doing that may be required by Congress and cheered by the New York Times, but that doesn't make it a good thing for America. It doesn't even make it insurance. It's welfare. We can debate whether such welfare is good policy, but let's discuss it honestly. Calling welfare "insurance" muddies thinking. Read on...
The only mud here lies between Stossel's ears. If someone with a pre-existing condition is paying for their insurance policy, it's not welfare, unless you're a corporate shill who only cares about company profits and not people. Health insurance companies need to be returned to non-profit status, for the good of the country.
Login or Register to post comments.
That's pretty much right on the money.
... is that you?
.
John Stossel is a pre-existing condition...
... When will he be dropped?
.
This clown being slapped by the wrestler many years ago where it did something to his hearing..
Was that considered a welfare check when he sued..
Stossel is right on the money. Sorry Logan, you're way off base here.
they must meet government requirements. So all government reuirements are thus welfare?
Here's your "Q" that fell out of requirements. I found it here on the floor. :)
P.
IF you still have health coverage.
due to the fall, but my insurer says its vestigal. Its the P part I want covered anyways.
this person is full of facts that need no citing, but s/he requires proof from everyone else!
So:
Here is my proof of that.
I am a huge fan of irony. Light starch in those shirts please!
Jesus, I've heard of lost puppies but this is ridiculous.
or go bankrupt because fools like you do not understand that profit is not the sole factor in the quality of American health care or lack thereof. So we have actually had more than enough of you.
I will say, however, with some degree of confidence, that about zero percent of the innovation in American health care can be attributed to the existence of or profitability of insurance companies.
I didn't know that insurance companies invent drugs or treatments.
This is the John Stossel I love......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ
Came for the Stossel slap down.
Leaving satisfied.
and Andy Kaufman, remember that? When the wrestler threw Andy K. right down on his head. Yikes.
Stossel had it coming.
Is that what you do to your children when they ask the hard questions?
so, asking a wrestler, if wrasseling is fake, is your idea of Stossel asking a "hard question"?
must have been a hard question, the guy didn't want to answer it.
That is what you do to smart ass, pretty boy reporters trying to be next Geraldo Rivera.
I may not like John Stossel but that wrestler is just a fuckin' goon.
.
SOCIAL SECURITY is welfare?
MEDICAID is welfare?
The broad brush of generalities is getting the best of what is left of the American mind.
.
It's a perisitant little troll ain't it?
Patients with preexisting conditions are dropped. But don't call it rationing!!!
What do you call it when insurance companies take your money but don't provide services? I call it robbery.
I used to like this guy...but that was a long time ago when ABC was a good non-corpoate entity that has a news staff that was interested in reporting facts rather than reiterating corporate BS. Those days are long gone. Stossle's flushed his career along with Cokie Roberts and Geraldo.
I never pass on an opportunity to post this video clip of stossel's fine work.
LMAO!
Poor John, he did insist on filint suit though...hey wasn't that one of those 'frivolous' lawsuits?
is neither good policy nor good welfare.
John's claim was DENIED.
but curt keeps right on a ticking.
Censorship has only made me more lascivious.
Not Stossel. Ugh.
Stossel is a libertarian, probably a Paulista. See what a great philosphy that is? Atlas may have shrugged but Jebus surely wept.
Damn our defenseless borders. What happened to Clintonites and Paulists.
They came over from Clintonistan and Paulistan. They were sneaky and fast. There was no way to stop them. One of the Clintonites took a job that no Ameican would take at the time. This kept the Paulists at bay for a while.
not Messikins? My baddo, moo cha cha.
Yes, from Arabistan. It's one of the least known continents. The native language is Arabanize. It is the Clintonites and Paulist first language.
Makes since since there is the Arabiastanian desert.
Lots of sand.
This guy just keeps proving over and over again what an uncaring idiot he is.
A corporate shill, I'm not surprised.
WTG, John, such a great analogy, people are just like cars after all.
The comments at the link are a hoot also.
Apparently Stossel isn't aware of just exactly what health insurance companies consider "pre-existing conditions." I don't think anyone would actually quibble if an insurance company didn't want to extend coverage to someone after he/she has learned that he has, oh, lung cancer. And that would be a fairly accurate analogy.
But I'm still trying to figure out why my insurance company refused to pay for the doctor's visit when I fell on an icy sidewalk after a storm. According to them, the back injury was a "pre-existing condition" because I had only had the policy for 5 1/2 months.
assholes or one of their family members go through the kind of shit I've had to go through, due to all this healthcare for profit bullshit.
My brother felt the same as the first poster and that dick stoessel until he saw what happened to me.
It's as offensive as shit.
for the corporate lobbyists at the Manhattan Institute
and then there's this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbl92RqHVmk
I was denied insurance through Fortis Financial group for a pre-existing condition.
My condition? Asthma. Flares up once a year. Costs $25 and a doctor's visit.
I was denied coverage because of that.
the healthiest people I know! I'd had 2 Sudafed tabs about 2 hours before my blood pressure was taken. It's always been textbook-perfect.
They just didn't want to insure me b/c of my age (60). Bastards. The thing about "pre-existing conditions"--what the hell, isn't that why a person needs insurance in the first place, to cover what's wrong with them?? Or else what's the point? Besides just giving them your money for nothing.
If he didn't say the most controversial crap, we wouldn't hear anything from him. Being a good guy must not have worked for him so he decided to go down the crazy shit controversial path.
You should have heard the insanity coming from Beck tonight. He said if we had universal health care and ran out of money we would have to ration the meds that we had at the time. Lot's of "mights", "coulds", and ifs in his explanation.
also welfare.
and a very mild form of torture
The 'tache, in and of itself...
Well you can turn him off and make it stop any time you want to.
LOLOL
...when THIS happened to him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ
Stossel only has a job because he's a really good Reslug soldier and cock sucker.
Don't forget his work with Hall and Oates
Or his younger years as a swimmer in the 70's.
Why'd he flush that career down the toilet to be just another dweeb in tweed?
Herr Aldo to me. Maybe a frightened, mustachioed Dennis Miller too.
http://www.famouswhy.com/pictures/people/harr...
The well to do and the tea baggers are against universal health insurance. How's that for a twist? One most likely is under insured and the other is most likely insured to the teeth, but neither sees a need for the rest of Americans to be insured.
Beck: they want . .
Stossel: to not have to pay for anything
Beck: a free ride
Stossel: on the back of hard working Americans
Beck: never occurred to them to get . .
Stossel: a job . .
Beck: or create one . .
Stossel: I mowed lawns . .
Beck: paper route . .
Stossel: you have to start somewhere . .
And it's so cool 'cause now we just sit and bullshit for a living.
Beck: why won't they . .
Stossel: be like us . .
Limbaugh: there's no reason anyone in this country . .
Beck: should not be a millionaire . .
Stossel: work hard, be honest . .
Beck: flip houses . .
Stossel: nothing illegal bout that
...that insurers get. all of you, I'll give you health care insurance, you give me your money, 'K? see ya, bye.
Ah the face of Libertarianism.
Where people are comparable to cars.
This is a fine example of why I nearly hate Libertarians more than Republicans.
I paid for those roads and those libertarians just want another FREE RIDE.
Isn't it ironic that the major Libertarian policy group in America is a non-profit organization?
Talk about welfare! :)
To be a libertarian is to live a lie. They are living oxymorons and totally intellectually dishonest. It's individualism taken to the extreme, something not practical or possible in this or any world.
... who needs death camps?
John Stossel cashing checks from ABC is welfare. John is taking a spot at ABC that could be filled by an actual Reporter instead of a Republican shrill.
Insurance is about people pooling their money so that someone can be paid out of the fund when someone makes a claim. Insurance companies spend all sorts of time and effort in trying to determine the odds that a given event that will be covered by the insurance policy will or will not occur. If they figure the probabilities wrong, then they have to pay out more than the total of the money in the pool, and the company goes belly up.
One of the ways they make sure they don't go belly up is by ruling out certain pre-existing conditions, because they completely screw up the probability tables.
Now, the insurance companies can create policies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, but because it's known in advance that the probability of having to pay out of the pool is going to be pretty darn close to 100%, you can bet your sweet bippy that it's going to be a very expensive policy.
Frankly, I don't see how we can expect insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions that are very expensive to treat without putting said insurance companies at great risk of going out of business.
Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here.
"Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here."
Healthcare is a basic human right in most of the industrialized world, not a source of profit like we have in this country. Not a hard concept to understand...
... but you have to take basic math and accounting principles into the equation too, you know. If not, the whole operation goes down the drain. As in, money's all gone, nobody gets covered for anything.
maybe the "Somethings should be left out of the realm of profit..." was not subtle enough for you. Or you just simply can't fathom that somethings should be best left out of the realm of profit.
If you apply basic math, it turns out that the quickest way to profit for an insurance company is to take your money and deny your claims, and voila that is exactly what their MO revolves around. It never took a genius to figure that one out, which is why such a model has been shunned every where else in the industrialized world. Maybe you should apply the remedial math advice?
This is where the fantasy land that Libertarians reside in is revealed.
They like to pretend that humans are virtuous creatures that would never do anything immoral, because that would hurt their business. These guys worship the "invisible hand" of the free market, and love to ignore reality when it contradicts their pristine view of the world.
no, health care is not a right.
it is a good. you don't have a right to the workforce of your doctor. that would violate his human rights.
if you want to decide as a society that we should subsidize health insurance, just like we subsidize food for the poor, that's fine.
but health care as a right is still BS.
before your insurance company realizes it was a pre-existing condition and they drop you out.
WTF means "the workforce of a doctor?" LOL.
Dude. That would be awesome to be rejected by your insurance company because they thought you were illogical. I could picture the rejection letter now. You don't make any sense. And neither does our rejection of you.
Ah but you're pretending the doctor would be forced to work for free, and that is flat out bullshit.
The doctors in the UK, Sweden, Canada, and every other industrialized nation on the planet make a very nice living on their public health care systems.
The only people that would lose money on a deal like public health care are the insurers, who should have no say over my human right to health care.
I'm going to assume you have never been denied coverage for something, or had a family member that died because their insurance company denied them.
no I'm not pretending that. but it is the natural consequence of "health care as a right". health care as a right is nonsense.
food is no right either, but we have subsidies in place so everyone can have food.
for your information, I HAVE been denied coverage, and I live in a country in europe with an almost 100% public option.
good luck with bankrupting your country with a public option. on the other hand, your country is already bankrupt...
Relatively bankrupt, thank you.
We still have a surplus of Military and that trumps financial problems.
Now I know you're totally full of shit...
the lesser known of the netherlands, right between Luxembourg and Holland.
Careful with the Dutch criticism tyler.
;-)
Oops my bad,
My last name is Van something or other,
so I thought I should act offended.
... some of the coolest (and compassionate) peeps I know for what it is worth.
I just assumed the latest libertarian supermensch visiting this site was from the netherlands due to his affinity for herring (of the red kind).
why, because I said I have been denied coverage in a public option system?
don't you think there are lists of things that are covered and things that are not? decided by some government department?
and we here didn't even go so far as the british and deny life saving drugs. just some treatments.
fortunately, I could afford it myself (5-figure-sum), otherwise it'd still be in pain.
Why would you do that, if it's so important to your argument?
... but thanks for clear any initial reservations with your subsequent posts.
So here is the answer to your "Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here" question:
Basic human decency maybe?
So the question is, were some of you born with it and then decided to shed it as it was slowing you down for the next libertarian olympics? Or you were born without it, and thus could be construed as a "pre-existing" condition?
Basic human decency is a wonderful thing. I'm all for people behaving decently, and not ripping other people off of their hard earned money.
However, we're talking about money here, and basic human decency isn't going to override the fundamental principles of accounting. Health care costs money. Costs should be kept as low as possible. But there will be a cost, and you have to know ahead of time what the cost is going to be, and how that cost is going to be paid, or you're going to end up with yet another system that doesn't work.
As the book of Luke (chapter 14) puts it:
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Part of this springs from the puritanical roots of our country. If it feels good or seems kind and generous, it is viewed suspiciously. Drug addict? Go to jail and bankrupt the country, but we won't treat you medically. Prostitute? Move along, here, no social conditions of poverty that permanently criminalize segments of our population to see. Healthcare? What makes you think you deserve anything, you ungrateful whelp!
First time I read Marcuse's Eros and Civilization I realized that it's okay to enjoy life. Unless you're John Stossel. Then you should suffer.
Where do you draw the line on what pre-existing conditions will be denied? As I mentioned above I was denied due to mild asthma.
And could we conceive of some safety net that did help with serious chronic illness or are the conservatives willing to bend on the euthanasia issue?
Single payer first time insurance, pays for two years, then gets the bad news your problem is going to cost $100,000 then what?
Anyone could buy a policy, "pre-existing condition" or not, and then find out in two years that they will need an expensive treatment of some sort.
And someone with what you're terming a "pre-existing condition" could end up never needing another treatment for it again. In fact, some of those pre-existing conditions are much less likely to need additional treatment for an acute episode IF the person has regular medical care in the first place.
And, of course, the final little thought - the whole equation changes if you remove the corporate profit motive from health care. And those corporate profits should never have been there in the first place.
cut costs at the medical end to to keep profits and salaries high.
but what is difficult to understand about the fact that health care coverage should never have been a for profit industry.
Adequate health care is a basic human right, profits are not a right.
Physician who said insurance? We don't do that here we go on the honor system.
Well, I think the devil here is how one determines what constitutes "adequate".
Health care can not possibly be a "right", because it imposes a cost on one's fellow man. People (including doctors and nurses and any number of other kinds of health practitioners) insist, like most people, on being paid for their time.
I'm a computer programmer. Would you care to make the claim that you having your own public website is one of your human rights? That a programmer with specialized knowledge of how to get a website to do a certain thing that you wouldn't be able to do on your own, is required, by basic human decency, to give you as much time and effort as you want, at a price that you get to determine entirely on your own, to give you such a website, with all the bells and whistles you can possibly imagine, with no choice on the part of the programmer to agree to said price, is your "right"?
It's entirely possible that people in the medical field are overcharging for their services, but I think the burden is on those who are unhappy about the charges to prove that an immoral act is occurring somewhere before you get to force the medical health providers to fork over their time and effort at a price that you think is reasonable.
and as such owe a professional responsibity to the public. Similar to lawyers. I do not believe computer programmers are held to a similar standard.
Now the ABA doesn't mandate pro bono work, but strongly encourages it, in part because as a self-regulated profession, lawyers try to avoid inviting government regulation. So do doctors.
the same. Only one group is actually providing a value proposition and services, whereas the other is simply adding an overhead. But I guess it is easier to use the healthcare professionals as shield...
Let me guess, you are a sysadmin...
at publicly supported universities.
If I don't have access to a decent computer programmer, my laptop might die, but I won't. Many people can actually exist quite happily without internet access or even a computer, your services are a luxury.
Medical care access is not a 'luxury'. When you become ill, you need medical care, and most of us will at some time in our lives become ill and need medical care. To deny that because you think medicine should be run on a business basis, where insurance companies determine how much you're 'entitled' to - or pay exhorbitant bills that financially cripple you for life - is not only heartless and inhumane, it's insane.
Unbelievable that anyone can't get that through their heads.
Mandatory minimum sentences are not moral, but they enhance the bottom line of the private, for profit prison industry.
Seeing as the prison industry is there to make money, maybe there is something I'm not understanding here.
He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means ``I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve''. It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help. --Issac Asimov
Actuarial tables can be used to calculate the probability of your house burning down and that can be used to spread the risk among homeowners. Virtually everyone, however, gets sick or requires health care at some time in their lives and trying to spread that risk while allowing a profit makes no sense at all. That's why insurance companies should go out of business.
Very well said. Props to you.
"Actuarial tables can be used to calculate the probability of your house burning down and that can be used to spread the risk among homeowners."
If a guy whose house is already burnt down walks into the insurance agent's office and asks to buy a fire insurance policy, do you think the policy he buys should cover his already-destroyed-by-fire house?
He can't reasonably expect the insurance company to do this, because he has a pre-existing condition.
And how is a burnt down house comparable to someone born with a condition like asthma?
... some insurance policies are designed to cover those people who don't, at the time the policy is taken out, have asthma, but who might, at some point in the future, come down with the condition. That keeps the cost of the insurance down.
If they know at the time you take out the policy that you absolutely will be making claims for asthma treatments, you're in a completely different actuarial table that requires them to charge you more than they charge those who don't have it, but might come down with it later.
I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
but it is impossible to justify. Who needs insurance companies but their investors? Remove them from the loop and tremendous resources are freed that allow everyone to have health care. Just like every other civilized industrial economy in the world
My point is that insurance companies have no business being involved in health care in the first place. The only way they can remain profitable is to deny health care not provide it. The question for any human is which is preferable, healthy insurance companies or healthy people.
... that when you say "The only way they can remain profitable", what you mean is, "The only way they can remain in operation", right?
Out-of-operation insurance companies, whether they're run by private companies, or by governments, don't do anyone any good.
Why have the European systems sustained themselves for so long?
Why don't policies pay for physicals to prevent more costly conditions?
It is not always a good thing to maximize the bottom line in a business. It is wrong to focus on shortterm profits at the financial disadvantage of a majority of the business's customers.
Our system used to work. What do you think happened? more chronic illness or profiteering excessively?
private health insurers will be redundant. In the free market, for-profit system it's up to them to create new markets for their product.
FIFY
We have a single payer system and that payer is the taxpayer whether an individual or a corporation. And it rocks compared to what the US has. The actuarial risk is spread over everyone who is eligible to claim benefits and that is as it should be.
That's an interesting point.
the risk is diluted when everyone participates.
The more selective an insurer becomes about who it can insure, the more expensive a catastrophic illness becomes to the bottom line.
And by that you mean, "the risk is diluted when everyone is forced to participate."
So much for freedom of choice.
What other freedoms are you offering to sell down the river today?
countries for a quality of healthcare that ranks at the bottom 3 of the top 40 of those countries is not a "freedom" is a "rip off."
LOL.
If you want to die you can refuse health care.
But you can't expect me to buy it without knowing the details of your plan ahead of time.
Now, I know Congress likes to operate that way: that's why they enacted the PATRIOT laws without even reading it before they voted on it.
I, on the other hand, prefer not to buy a pig in a poke.
You may very well be able to create the world's greatest government-run health care system. But I expect to know how it will work before I join it, and I also expect to be able to not join it if I don't like it.
I don't think a plan that forces participation can hardly be said to be operating under American ideals of freedom.
I you can't understand the value proposition behind paying half as much for an order of magnitude better care.
I always get a hoot of the free market types which display such bad business sense. LOL.
BTW, most socialized health care systems do allow (and actually operate) private HMOs. So you are free to pay all the money you want for mediocre care, if that is your sort of thing. I am not one to judge... for tastes, there are colors I guess.
I want the freedom to choose whether to pay my income tax or not. Wait...are you saying the government FORCES me to pay it??
Of course you're forced to pay taxes. You're also most likely forced to contribute to Social Security. If you don't pay, they'll either take it from you by force, or they'll throw you in the hoosegow.
With liberty, and justice, for all.
is welfare for those who own them or work for them.
All rights, including the right to invest and profit, are social constructs.
I may never receive insurance after I leave that company?
If I'm born a diabetic, I never qualify for insurance?
I do have a way for previous conditions to be covered AND for the health insurers not to be put out by it -- single payer.
interfering with corporate bottom lines. Ergo, if you are born with a condition which renders you unable to maximize somebody else's profit.... you are shit out of luck.
were decimated by their son's hemophilia costs, after the breadwinner's business failed.
... of having a kid. There problem fixed, market solution for your in-law's brought by "compassionate" conservatism.
That is what happens when you have human emotions like falling in love and wanting to have a family, none of which are rights. Ergo, tough luck... there is only one right to rule them all: corporate entitlement to profit.
OMG, I think I need to take a shower to cleanse my soul for having written that... I am so sorry to hear about that miss_kitty.
I would venture to guess that half the so-called charities direct only a fraction of the funds they raise to their ostensible charitable goal. There is no safer scam than starting a "charity" or "non-profit" organization which then directs the vast majority of it's funds to salaries and bonuses for their staff. Nope. I wouldn't trust these clowns to run a non-profit health care organization without severe restrictions and government oversight.
for a safer . .
it IS a subsidy.
I wouldn't call it welfare, but it has nothing to do with insurance.
if you run an insurance business, you don't give someone who lives next to a vulcano fire insurance, do you?
that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any subsidy, but it still is one.
... "compassionate" conservatism is on the march. LOL.
To Drop Pre-Existing Condition Practices is "Welfare"
Yup, Johhnny. You're right.
And professional wrestling is fake, too.
I really LUV this clip...
When insurance companies deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition they are rationing health care, pure and simple. I thought rationing was supposed to be a bad thing.
This morning Ezra Klein in a discussion at the Washington Post said, "the thing about the market is that it doesn't solve problems. It works towards efficiencies. The market's solution to the problem of "a lot of people can't afford health-care coverage" is that "a lot of people can't afford health-care coverage." That's what the market does: Given scarce resources, it apportions them according to the capacity to pay. A lot of people can't afford a Lexus. Thus, a lot of people don't have a Lexus. That's not a market failure. It's the market's solution."
"The market isn't failing to solve the problem here. It's just that we don't want the market's solution. We want people to have health care. So we need to go beyond the market. It's the same as fire departments or national defense or roads. There are things we want people to have even if they can't pay for it."
and that solution beyond the market solution is called a subsidy.
not "insurance", and no need to turn an entire industry over to the federal government.
Nobody is talking about turning the health care industry over to the federal government, simply the payment system to be managed in a non-profit fashion. Not a hard concept to understand really... although seeing how some of our libertarian visitors seem to still be struggling with very basic concepts like human dignity, probably non-profit health care may be faaaaar to complex for them to grasp.
Baby steps I guess...
I didn't know obama was setting up charity running a not-for-profit health insurance.
I thought he was supporting a public plan.
our liberal visitors seem to have a have time figuring out that not only private insurance can deny care.
I've experienced it myself, under a public plan. I didn't fit into some bogus criteria of when you can get a specific treatment.
pain was of no interest to anyone.
More people are happy with their medicare coverage and payouts than are happy with their private insurance.
Denial of coverage is often the first response if the care doesn't look like a normal office visit. Corporations are obedient to their bottom line; they can talk a good care plan but their reason for being is to make a profit.
... so where exactly do you live? You expect a single subjective opinion to be somehow authoritative, even though you have provided not a single reference or detail.
It is ironic that for a person living in a foreign land, with socialized medicine, you have a penchant for providing republican talking points. By pure "coincidence" I am sure...
"There are things we want people to have even if they can't pay for it."
I insist that you pay for my iPhone. I insist that it's a human right to have one. I insist that basic human decency requires you to buy one for me.
I sure appreciate it.
we do however, want you to have access to health care with going bankrupt to get it.
I insist that, since I have already determined that possession of a iPhone is a human right, you have no say in the matter.
It's already been decided. Now all we have to do is work out the details of how you're going to pay for it.
So which insurer signs your paycheck?
mnich13 are really this stupid or are you incredibly ignorant or just an asshole.
I fear you recognize you're losing the argument.
If the question was to difficult for you to understand which led you to say something else stupid let me explain it to you;
There is nobody who claims that owning an iPhone is a human right. To equate owning an iPhone to the right to health care is stupid.
If you think that making sure that people have health care not a good thing to do yoiu are ignorant. A health populace is good for everybody. And the economy. Everybody wins when people have access to health care.
I think yoiu already know all this but don't care and that make yoiu an asshole.
So yoiu see mnich it is you who have lost the debate. Move along.
Sorry, but you're wrong. I don't work for an insurance company.
Thanks for playing, though.
So someone needing health care is now akin to you wanting an iphone?
You're just a fucking idiot. Period. Fucking libertarin troll.
Libertarians are some of the most selfish fucks on the planet, thanks for proving it.
Sure, if you'll buy me the Lexus Klein wrote about. The point was that Lexi and IPhones are appropriate market items, health care is not.
Login or Register to post comments.