“Where does the bill improve the quality of health care?
By providing service to more people, it improves the average quality of healthcare people in the US receive. Oh, and of course a public plan might create what the insurance companies fear most - a meaningful competition. The poor billionaires, I can almost feel my eyes watering… oh wait, that was just the chili.
As for the second question, you will get an honest answer when you ask an honest question. For now, a) you can get subsidy if you don’t have the funds and b) you don’t need to buy it from the government).
Howgozit, I meant that if you extend the availability of a service to a higher percentage of the people, then you improve the average quality of care Americans enjoy. For some 10+ %, there will be a marked improvement - because they will get to HAVE healthcare, and that is more than they have now.
As for your second question - no, it is not an honest question, and I did answer it. There is nothing in the Constitution about having to buy insurance from the government and that doesn’t matter, because you won’t have to. For all the grandstanding and “sky is falling” speeches, private providers won’t be going ANYWHERE. Canada and the UK have private healthcare providers with a much more developed and more restrictive public system than the US has any chance of getting.
hey nospam4 - that’s great! ”The difference between Pelosi in the middle of the road and a skunk in the middle of the road is that there would be skid marks in front of the skunk”
comYics over 14 years ago
:)). That skunks face is hilarious.
dshepard over 14 years ago
This is a good one! After all, this is a great picture of what that bill is REALLY like.
oneoldhat over 14 years ago
funny but sadly true
nospam4me over 14 years ago
The difference between Pelosi in the middle of the road and a skunk in the middle of the road is that there would be skid marks in front of the skunk.
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
“Where does the bill improve the quality of health care?
By providing service to more people, it improves the average quality of healthcare people in the US receive. Oh, and of course a public plan might create what the insurance companies fear most - a meaningful competition. The poor billionaires, I can almost feel my eyes watering… oh wait, that was just the chili.
As for the second question, you will get an honest answer when you ask an honest question. For now, a) you can get subsidy if you don’t have the funds and b) you don’t need to buy it from the government).
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
Howgozit, I meant that if you extend the availability of a service to a higher percentage of the people, then you improve the average quality of care Americans enjoy. For some 10+ %, there will be a marked improvement - because they will get to HAVE healthcare, and that is more than they have now.
As for your second question - no, it is not an honest question, and I did answer it. There is nothing in the Constitution about having to buy insurance from the government and that doesn’t matter, because you won’t have to. For all the grandstanding and “sky is falling” speeches, private providers won’t be going ANYWHERE. Canada and the UK have private healthcare providers with a much more developed and more restrictive public system than the US has any chance of getting.
parkersinthehouse over 14 years ago
hey nospam4 - that’s great! ”The difference between Pelosi in the middle of the road and a skunk in the middle of the road is that there would be skid marks in front of the skunk”
screamhaHAhahaha (hey ahab - momn!!!)
brawny80 over 14 years ago
the skunk is so funny face and all the people running is so stupid