MontereyJack
 
  6  
Tue 26 Nov, 2013 03:56 pm
coldjoint says:
Quote:
The Republicans have a plan. It involves torte reform


I don't believe I've ever eaten a torte that needed reform. How are they planning on reforming them? Outlawing the use of nuts in the baking, perhaps? I doubt that will prove of much help. Tort reform won't either--it's been tried and it doesn't change things more than one percent or so at most. Single-payer is the only thing that has shown measurable, long-term reductions in medical expenses and patient approval.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 26 Nov, 2013 05:42 pm
@RexRed,
The GOP is so desperate, they want everybody in the world to not negotiate with Obama. Just say no! What a bunch of kooks!
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 26 Nov, 2013 07:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Reuters By Matt Spetalnick
15 minutes ago
U.S. Secretary of State Kerry gestures as he speaks to the media about the deal that has been reached between six world powers and Iran in Geneva.
View gallery
.
By Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

The findings were rare good news in the polls for President Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have dropped in recent weeks because of the botched rollout of his signature healthcare reform law.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Tue 26 Nov, 2013 08:11 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
torte


Excuse me. And if you could sell across state lines it would not increase competition. We are talking about Econ. 101.

cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 26 Nov, 2013 09:42 pm
@coldjoint,
You're pretty dumb; where did you learn that? Tort reform effects on health care costs is ambiguous at best. Explain how tort reform will reduce cost.

You can't; even the "experts" can't.

BTW, that's not Econ 101 by any stretch. Your reference to tort reform and health care cost has no relevance.

You're pretty dumb; why do you bother posting on a2k. It only shows how stupid you are!
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Tue 26 Nov, 2013 09:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Did you figure out it is easier to try and insult people than to defend the clusterfuck the community organizer has caused.

I thought so. Loser
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 12:22 am
@coldjoint,
Sorry, but you're an easy target. Challenge what I say about your opinions; you can't.

You post bull ****, and I'll continue to challenge you.
Region Philbis
 
  3  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 04:19 am

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1476220_10151832196546275_585108814_n.png
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 11:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
I have seen others opinions of you, and they are not good. Would you like to challenge that?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 11:17 am
@coldjoint,
They can challenge all they wish; but they must challenge what I say. I have over 80,000 posts on a2k, and a very small percentage have been challenged.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. That's all you'll ever see from me!

People like you are only a pain in the butt. You make references without providing it.

You,
Quote:
I have seen others opinions of you, and they are not good.
ROFLMAO
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 11:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I have over 80,000 posts


Looks like you need to get a life.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 01:11 pm
coldjoint says:
Quote:
The Republicans have a plan. It involves torte reform, selling insurance across state lines


Tort reform has been tried and it hasn't measurably reduced medical costs. Which leaves selling insurance across state lines as the only "solution" Republicans have, according to coldjoint. To bring US healthcare costs in line with those in the entire rest of the developed world, "competition across state lines" would have to cut US health care costs by FIFTY PERCENT. It would have to cut our healthcare costs, what we currently spend, IN HALF. You seriously think it would do anything but a tiny fraction of that, joint? Even you can't be that naive.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 01:28 pm
@coldjoint,
You,
Quote:
Looks like you need to get a life.
ha ha ha ha ha....

You are so dumb, you make statements that make you look more foolish.
You're either very stupid or ignorant. My life is probably in the top ten percent of all humans living today. I travel the world, and have friends in many countries. I've been retired since 1998, and have traveled to over 200 countries - 89 unique ones - all five continents, the southernmost and northernmost cities of the world, flew to Mt Everest, and have dipped my feet in the Dead Sea several times. I've seen the Taj Mahal, Victoria Falls, Angkor Wat, Igassu Falls, Antarctica, Machu Picchu, Easter Island, Galapagos Islands, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Monument Valley, British Museum, Luxor, Abu Simbel, pyramids of Gaza, Holy Sepulchre, Uluru, Great Barrier Reef, most of South America, Europe, Asia, Central Asia, Canada, Caribbean, and the US.

Grow up, if that's possible.



Keep on chugging, you stupid ****!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 01:51 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
torte


Excuse me. And if you could sell across state lines it would not increase competition. We are talking about Econ. 101.



No, it wouldn't increase competition since any insurance company can sell in any state now as long as they meet the state's requirements. Allowing insurance companies to not meet the state requirements doesn't increase competition at all. It only can decrease costs if it interferes with the state's right to set its own insurance standards. That would mean insurance companies could sell crap policies and the state couldn't force them to sell better ones by setting state standards.
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 01:55 pm

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1454896_10151833225761275_136398243_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 02:18 pm
@parados,
Quote:
No, it wouldn't increase competition since any insurance company can sell in any state now as long as they meet the state's requirements. Allowing insurance companies to not meet the state requirements doesn't increase competition at all. It only can decrease costs if it interferes with the state's right to set its own insurance standards. That would mean insurance companies could sell crap policies and the state couldn't force them to sell better ones by setting state standards.


Guess what if you buy a crappy policy it is your fault. If you are not smart enough to know what you are paying for it is your fault. Does the government tell you what to type here? Do you consult them on decorating tips too?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 02:22 pm
@coldjoint,
You,
Quote:
Guess what if you buy a crappy policy it is your fault. If you are not smart enough to know what you are paying it is your fault. Does the government tell you what to type here? Do you consult them on decorating tips too?


What has that got to do with,
Quote:
No, it wouldn't increase competition since any insurance company can sell in any state now as long as they meet the state's requirements. Allowing insurance companies to not meet the state requirements doesn't increase competition at all. It only can decrease costs if it interferes with the state's right to set its own insurance standards.


State requirements means meeting some minimum standard. It has nothing to do with "crap." In a free market, consumers have a choice to buy quality or crap; it has nothing to do with health insurance.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 02:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your reply just told you. The regulations are choking states and our economy.

And the government is not a business.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 02:56 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
No, it wouldn't increase competition since any insurance company can sell in any state now as long as they meet the state's requirements. Allowing insurance companies to not meet the state requirements doesn't increase competition at all. It only can decrease costs if it interferes with the state's right to set its own insurance standards. That would mean insurance companies could sell crap policies and the state couldn't force them to sell better ones by setting state standards.


Guess what if you buy a crappy policy it is your fault. If you are not smart enough to know what you are paying for it is your fault. Does the government tell you what to type here? Do you consult them on decorating tips too?


If states didn't have regulations you would have no idea what your policy covered. The Insurance company could just change the policy after they take your money and then not cover you for anything. If the state doesn't enforce insurance standards then who will? Who enforces contracts in your world?
RexRed
 
  5  
Wed 27 Nov, 2013 03:06 pm
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1480660_790045304355878_1478112573_n.jpg
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.23 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:35:07