DO Conservatives certainly know the difference between Universal Health Care and Universal Insurance?
They seem a bit slow on the uptake. Do they actually know the difference between these two policies. Why would Conservatives reason to private companies as Universal Health Insurance has.
Answers:
cons don't know their redneck azz from a hole in the ground!
Universal form care = Socialized medicine. They won't pass breast cancer patients medical treatment if they're in stage 3 or 4 in Great Britain. Lovely.
Universal Health Insurance = I work my (a)ss stale to pay for someone else's insurance because they can't or won't get a situation. I will also be forced to participate in a sub standard organization program that private industry does so much better. Name one thing that government does economically -- nothing. That's why everyone that works is forced to pay into Social Security and not a soul INVESTS in it.
You seem a bit slow on the uptake. Perhaps if you've experienced any of these, you'd be pushing AGAINST them. Source(s): Lived in GB, Japan, China and had to collide through the Canadian health system for my uncle's double bypass.
Universal BS sounds great...but that's all it is. BS. Bureaucrats decide who gets what kind of medical treatment instead of the doctors.
In the U.S. we already hold universal healthcare......idiot. No one is denied services they need. Now, if someone desires better services, they do need to go bring a job, and I don't know, maybe remuneration for those services?
No... why don't you tell us the difference. Do you know?
Either passageway, universal health comfort as proposed by the democrats raises taxes and creates a bureaucratic level of affairs of state thereby increasing the scope and power of the federal government.
Universal insure as proposed by the more moderate liberals in the democratic party is a subsidized insurance system.... again raising taxes to support the subsidy and creating a rank of bureaucracy and expanding government.
Either way, complex taxes and bigger government.
So.... do you know the difference? I doubt that you do but please.... fill us in the dark Conservatives in on it.
Because the condition insurance companies will have government guidelines on how they can invest premiums to preserve the claim pool solvent.
In other words, the government is opposed to them making a profit.
Instead of answering to a board, they will be answering to a administration employed contract manager.
Look into NICE. GOOGLE it.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence
They have a smiley obverse but the TRUTH is that they make value judgment on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment.
They decide whether or not you live or die.
Private insurance or not, a bureaucracy close to NICE will govern the conduct.
That is your future.
Yes, this is a extremely important distinction...I think most Conservatives honestly mistake it, because it's referred to as Universal Health Care SO OFTEN, so they cogitate it's the government running it.
Hard to blame them.
Unfortunately, the Republicans (no conservatives, don't give them that credit) are confused roughly speaking the whole issue. But you can't blame them, their good culture most of them, it's just that their source of media crafts their unbroken perception about the debate and completely warps it.
Its a universal question. I cogitate somewhere in the milky way. The cosmos is a mystery. But I'll amount it out someday. I'll get back to you near the answer. All inquiring minds want to know.
Because the corporate media writes rotten all programs starting with "universal" as something fruitless.
/
/│
/ \
"You cannot help man for always by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"
Abraham Lincoln
No. They don't care. Their merely interest lies in ranting against Obama.
Aren't you really in recent times wanting to have someone else pay for your robustness care?
It doesn't matter. "Universal" system that it will be the same for everyone, which would be good, as America is built on the belief that "adjectives men are created equal", but the equality would take away from those who worked their whole life span to obtain better things. That is the most anti-American policy known to man. Universal anything fail. Everywhere. It fails. Countries that have "Universal" systems when it comes to strength care or health insurance hold much higher rates of death cause by preventable diseases than the United States. The thing is, "universal"(adj. including or covering all or a integral collectively or distributively without limit or exception ; especially : available equitably to adjectives members of a society <universal condition coverage>) reduces or eliminates competition, as it is broad and nonspecific not allowing for multiple sources to offer a product. This lack of critical competition allows companies to hold a monopoly and begin to offer sub-par merchandise to the public, and in the case of strength care/health insurance, I do not want sub-par coverage.
P.S. I am NOT a Republican not do I consider myself to be conservative. I do not bang my sister. I do not live in a trailer. I do not mow my sward in my boxers, and I DO know my "azz" from a hole in the ground. Just to clear that up.
Also, anti-conservatives obligation to decide which stereotype they want conservatives to be. They can't be broke-off-their-***, illiterate hillbillies AND be the wealthy exploiters of workers that don't contemplation about anything except their money. Seriously conservative-bashers, clean your **** up, you with the sole purpose look cool to your co-bashers. Everyone else realizes you don't make sense.
Yeah, see the 1st answer!
I dont want my tax dollars paying for anything that has to due beside freeloaders and health care.
Get a errand and pay for it. I understand that!
It all boils down to the same entity. Decent Americans being taxed to hell to pay cheque to take care of good-for-nothing, worthless slackers like you.
Related Questions:
Answers:
cons don't know their redneck azz from a hole in the ground!
Universal form care = Socialized medicine. They won't pass breast cancer patients medical treatment if they're in stage 3 or 4 in Great Britain. Lovely.
Universal Health Insurance = I work my (a)ss stale to pay for someone else's insurance because they can't or won't get a situation. I will also be forced to participate in a sub standard organization program that private industry does so much better. Name one thing that government does economically -- nothing. That's why everyone that works is forced to pay into Social Security and not a soul INVESTS in it.
You seem a bit slow on the uptake. Perhaps if you've experienced any of these, you'd be pushing AGAINST them. Source(s): Lived in GB, Japan, China and had to collide through the Canadian health system for my uncle's double bypass.
Universal BS sounds great...but that's all it is. BS. Bureaucrats decide who gets what kind of medical treatment instead of the doctors.
In the U.S. we already hold universal healthcare......idiot. No one is denied services they need. Now, if someone desires better services, they do need to go bring a job, and I don't know, maybe remuneration for those services?
No... why don't you tell us the difference. Do you know?
Either passageway, universal health comfort as proposed by the democrats raises taxes and creates a bureaucratic level of affairs of state thereby increasing the scope and power of the federal government.
Universal insure as proposed by the more moderate liberals in the democratic party is a subsidized insurance system.... again raising taxes to support the subsidy and creating a rank of bureaucracy and expanding government.
Either way, complex taxes and bigger government.
So.... do you know the difference? I doubt that you do but please.... fill us in the dark Conservatives in on it.
Because the condition insurance companies will have government guidelines on how they can invest premiums to preserve the claim pool solvent.
In other words, the government is opposed to them making a profit.
Instead of answering to a board, they will be answering to a administration employed contract manager.
Look into NICE. GOOGLE it.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence
They have a smiley obverse but the TRUTH is that they make value judgment on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment.
They decide whether or not you live or die.
Private insurance or not, a bureaucracy close to NICE will govern the conduct.
That is your future.
Yes, this is a extremely important distinction...I think most Conservatives honestly mistake it, because it's referred to as Universal Health Care SO OFTEN, so they cogitate it's the government running it.
Hard to blame them.
Unfortunately, the Republicans (no conservatives, don't give them that credit) are confused roughly speaking the whole issue. But you can't blame them, their good culture most of them, it's just that their source of media crafts their unbroken perception about the debate and completely warps it.
Its a universal question. I cogitate somewhere in the milky way. The cosmos is a mystery. But I'll amount it out someday. I'll get back to you near the answer. All inquiring minds want to know.
Because the corporate media writes rotten all programs starting with "universal" as something fruitless.
/
/│
/ \
"You cannot help man for always by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"
Abraham Lincoln
No. They don't care. Their merely interest lies in ranting against Obama.
Aren't you really in recent times wanting to have someone else pay for your robustness care?
It doesn't matter. "Universal" system that it will be the same for everyone, which would be good, as America is built on the belief that "adjectives men are created equal", but the equality would take away from those who worked their whole life span to obtain better things. That is the most anti-American policy known to man. Universal anything fail. Everywhere. It fails. Countries that have "Universal" systems when it comes to strength care or health insurance hold much higher rates of death cause by preventable diseases than the United States. The thing is, "universal"(adj. including or covering all or a integral collectively or distributively without limit or exception ; especially : available equitably to adjectives members of a society <universal condition coverage>) reduces or eliminates competition, as it is broad and nonspecific not allowing for multiple sources to offer a product. This lack of critical competition allows companies to hold a monopoly and begin to offer sub-par merchandise to the public, and in the case of strength care/health insurance, I do not want sub-par coverage.
P.S. I am NOT a Republican not do I consider myself to be conservative. I do not bang my sister. I do not live in a trailer. I do not mow my sward in my boxers, and I DO know my "azz" from a hole in the ground. Just to clear that up.
Also, anti-conservatives obligation to decide which stereotype they want conservatives to be. They can't be broke-off-their-***, illiterate hillbillies AND be the wealthy exploiters of workers that don't contemplation about anything except their money. Seriously conservative-bashers, clean your **** up, you with the sole purpose look cool to your co-bashers. Everyone else realizes you don't make sense.
Yeah, see the 1st answer!
I dont want my tax dollars paying for anything that has to due beside freeloaders and health care.
Get a errand and pay for it. I understand that!
It all boils down to the same entity. Decent Americans being taxed to hell to pay cheque to take care of good-for-nothing, worthless slackers like you.
Related Questions:
- Trying to go and get condition insurance as a 21 years infirm?
- I don't enjoy robustness insurance, and I estimate i enjoy swine flu, can I walk to intern to draw from robustness benifits?
- Why do Government human resources get hold of to hang on to their cadilac form charge insurance below the Obama plan?
- I necessitate a polite a affordable robustness insurance plan for a relatives of four?
- When travelling to the US from the UK what is the diffeence between travel and strength insurance?