ALF Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 If only the Democrats read the bill before they passed it. Should everyone have hospital and catastrophic coverage ?
Gary M Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Should everyone have hospital and catastrophic coverage ? Should everyone have a Porsche? Should everyone have a mansion? Should everyone have a horse? Edited September 21, 2017 by Gary M
Nanker Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 I like the Canada system , but that's just me Then perhaps we should send our needy that don't have health insurance across the border to Canada to get their treatments. That's what the Canuks do to their people who need, e.g., open heart surgery. They ship them over here to get the treatment they need because it ins't available from their own healthcare system.
IDBillzFan Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 Should everyone have hospital and catastrophic coverage ? That would be my recommendation, yes. I also think the moment you are married, have children, and/or buy property, you should get a living trust. Oh, and I also think people who drive slowly in the fast lane should get a ticket.
ALF Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Should everyone have a Porsche? Should everyone have a mansion? Should everyone have a horse? So only the rich and poor should have healthcare , ok Edited September 21, 2017 by ALF
DC Tom Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 Oh look, a horse's ass can vomit out a talking point....again I do NOT want to meet the horse that vomits out of its ass.
Azalin Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 I do NOT want to meet the horse that vomits out of its ass. Why not? You quote them.
DC Tom Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 Why not? You quote them. And I don't want to meet gatorman...
keepthefaith Posted September 21, 2017 Posted September 21, 2017 Should everyone have a Porsche? Having owned 2 of them I'd recommend it yes, but you'll need a good health insurance policy for the car to cover the maintenance and repairs.
B-Man Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) Those who claim that the Graham-Cassidy bill is being rushed through the legislative process should know that they’re making time Monday night to have a televised debate on CNN between the bill’s namesakes and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar Edited September 22, 2017 by B-Man
Doc Brown Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Those who claim that the Graham-Cassidy bill is being rushed through the legislative process should know that they’re making time Monday night to have a televised debate on CNN between the bill’s namesakes and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar I'd like to see Trump and Obama debate since it's ultimately their bills.
ALF Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 4 charts that explain what Graham-Cassidy will do Big states are, not surprisingly, affected the most. Texas, which rejected Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, would see an increase of $35 billion in federal dollars headed its way. California and New York, two massive states whose governors accepted the Medicaid expansion, would see dips in funding of $78 billion and $45 billion, respectively. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/cassidy-graham-charts/index.html That couldn't be right ? Would never pass
Nanker Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Kalifornyah, Nueva York, Mass, and Maryland take 40% of the federal dollars dedicated to Medicare. Graham's bill is aimed at evening out the federal spend so it's equally applied to everyone. One person, one vote. One person in any state gets the same share of the federal dollars. Sounds fair - doesn't it?
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) Kalifornyah, Nueva York, Mass, and Maryland take 40% of the federal dollars dedicated to Medicare. Graham's bill is aimed at evening out the federal spend so it's equally applied to everyone. One person, one vote. One person in any state gets the same share of the federal dollars. Sounds fair - doesn't it? I heard that this morning, and I could only laugh. First time I can remember that Democrats are against "fair" redistribution of wealth to those in need and for states' rights. Edited September 22, 2017 by DC Tom
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 I'd like to see Trump and Obama debate since it's ultimately their bills. What purpose would that serve? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the architects of the two bills in question debate them,?
B-Man Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) I'd like to see Trump and Obama debate since it's ultimately their bills. Neither of them know crap about it................ ... Edited September 22, 2017 by B-Man
Magox Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Overall funding over the next decade for all the states combined would only have a reduction of about 6-7% from it's current baseline. It really is not a Draconian proposal. But as I said earlier, since there is nothing concrete to look at, because the states have to design these systems, the opponents can paint it any way that they'd like. Which of course if you are against it, that would be the way to do it. It's easier to attack the scary undefined unknown.
IDBillzFan Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Those who claim that the Graham-Cassidy bill is being rushed through the legislative process should know that they’re making time Monday night to have a televised debate on CNN between the bill’s namesakes and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar Will they give Bernie and Amy the questions in advance?
row_33 Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Will they give Bernie and Amy the questions in advance? anything but a scripted softball question will be met by Dr Evil pressing a button and the asker falling through the floor into a furnace
Recommended Posts