Rise Up All Patriots

This is a claim with no evidence to support its intended results. What we do know is that it is unconstitutional and that anything run by the government has always cost more than it was said it would. So facts and history are against this theory.

Competition can be had by allowing insurance to go beyond state lines. Government was never intended to run businesses or be a mode of competition in the free market. And all evidence available suggests it would never be successful.

So libbies want what is proven to work against itself which shows that they are not being honest about their intentions. They do not really want to create competition because they already know from history that government cannot be efficient and successful.

What libbies want is a complete take over of the health care system. If you control that market then you can control peoples lives.

 

Then why brag about how well YOUR great-grandmother benefits ?

Then lets leave Bush out of this.

More like SEVERS Medicare spending. And explain how a public option would increase competition ? How is a private business going to compete with a Gov't agency that doesn't have to turn a profit ? That, along with the "no pre-existing condition" clause is going to wipe-out insurance companies, leaving the Gov't alone, as the sole insurer. Why is there a federal law that says we can't buy insurance across state lines, if they are going to allow us to buy it from them ? But that has been explained to you, and you've just whined about being attacked. It has been articulated to you that this is a power grab by a tyrannical congress, but youy write it off as "connie" propoganda. Plus, as a putative Libertarian, how could you POSSIBLY support an unconstitutional mandate ?

Now,go ahead and explain how the Government insurance complex will reduce medical costs. I suspect in reality, you care little about reducing costs. You just want people better off than you to pay for your care, as evidenced by your praise of the way the great-grandmother doesn't have to.

 

Are you accusing her of Medicare fraud?

This article gives a better defence of the public option than I could. Also, I agree with you about buying insurance across state lines. That actually is a good idea from the connies.

:laugh: No, I want to pay for my insurance. I just want to be able to choose a public and out of state private options instead of just an in-state private one. Just so you know, I have to pay taxes too.

 

There you go being a victim again. I will not bother to spend my time here explaining myself. You either possess the cognitive ability to understand me or you don't. I don't put hidden messages in my posts.

I don't need your article. I have read the Gov't propaganda. I have also explained to you why the public option would destroy the private medical insurance companies.

Whatever. You, like most libbies, take the lazy way out. Liberalism is gutless.

 

Oh my, Curtis. I could write the exact same thing. You seem to have trouble with understanding my posts, then claim I said something I did not, in order to construct your strawman to attack. It goes both ways, my friend.

 

>Why is there a federal law that says we can't buy insurance across state lines

Guessing, but In washington State if an approved insurance company goes bankrupt the state covers the policy holders. This process would be subverted if the state had to cover out of state policies.

 

I never accused you of saying anything you didn't say. And I don't remember asking you to explain yourself, either. I just put your posts in paraphrase. You often, however, deny what you have said, or feel the need to add caveats. Not my fault.

And no, I'm not going to discuss old threads.