It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
So you want everybody to have shitty underfunded health care?
It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
So you want everybody to have shitty underfunded health care?
It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
Boy, you sure told me
Sounds like a concession to me.
Every once in awhile, my dog will do some fucking stupid shit. I'm fairly certain he's retarded. Then I'll yell at him for doing said stupid shit. Then I feel stupid myself for yelling at him, because fuck dude, he's a retarded dog. What the fuck did I really expect him to do.
It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
Thanks for making my point. As your statement about the VA supports it. There's no incentive to keep expenses down, because the money comes from the backs of the payer. If they happen to run into a shortfall they just give horrible care. This is precisely why a single payer system is terrible. This system isn't accountable for anything. At least health care providers are held accountable by policy contracts that mandate a certain level of service and shareholders.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
It's time to do away with the insurance companies and their "for profit" model for most health care and enact single payer universal health.
We can keep the insurance companies for people that want to pay extra for some platinum plated insurance so that you can have a lung transplant when you are 95 and haven't accepted that it time for you to LEAVE.
You of course realized that if insurance companies don't make a profit, they don't have money to pay large claims. I would much rather have an insurance company that barely squeaks by and then when I need them, don't have money to pay. That's what I like.
And like Greenblood mentioned, single payer government healthcare sure is working out wonderfully with the VA.
That's the point. The VA is underfunded and vets shouldn't have to deal with lesser care than what everyone else gets. Single payer solves the VA.
I like it when someone says something thinking it's helping their point, when in reality, it's making the opposite point.
Boy, you sure told me
Sounds like a concession to me.
Every once in awhile, my dog will do some fucking stupid shit. I'm fairly certain he's retarded. Then I'll yell at him for doing said stupid shit. Then I feel stupid myself for yelling at him, because fuck dude, he's a retarded dog. What the fuck did I really expect him to do.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
Companies can drop you on a whim now. Obamacare didn't change that.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
Companies can drop you on a whim now. Obamacare didn't change that.
Guaranteed Issue and Ban on Rescission Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot be denied coverage due to any reason other than your ability to pay, this is called guarantee issue. The ACA also includes provisions that ban rescission, meaning you cannot be dropped for any other reason other than failure to pay or fraud. Beyond that you can’t be charged a higher premium due to your health status and your health status can’t affect your ability to get or keep any health insurance covered by the Affordable Care Act. Please note that in some types of insurance, specifically supplemental health insurance options, don’t have to follow the same rules and regulations ACA compliant plans do.
ObamaCare makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Sounds like you support single payer.
Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Sounds like you support single payer.
Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.
And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Sounds like you support single payer.
Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.
And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
I know that's what yore news source says, but it's not true. Read the facts.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Sounds like you support single payer.
Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.
And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
I know that's what yore news source says, but it's not true. Read the facts.
Read yours:
The ACA helps transgender Americans due to its many patient protections such as:
Mandating that insurers must accept preexisting conditions like "gender identity disorder", which was often considered a preexisting condition before the law, or expanding coverage options to low and middle income Americans.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Sounds like you support single payer.
Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.
And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
I know that's what yore news source says, but it's not true. Read the facts.
Read yours:
The ACA helps transgender Americans due to its many patient protections such as:
Mandating that insurers must accept preexisting conditions like "gender identity disorder", which was often considered a preexisting condition before the law, or expanding coverage options to low and middle income Americans.
HondoFS
Use your brain. I know what my link says. Having a pre existing condition for gender identity disorder doesn't require a gender reassignment surgery. And nothing in the bill requires that anyone pay for gender reassignment surgery.
It's almost like you don't understand the difference or realize there's more than one treatment.
You and ozone are the only stupid fuckers left defending Obamacare. You realize this, yes?
Obamacare needs work to be fixed. The Republicans only plan is to repeal it, which is FS. Congress needs to pull their head out of their ass and put in place some fixes to make the system better.
Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
Companies can drop you on a whim now. Obamacare didn't change that.
Guaranteed Issue and Ban on Rescission Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot be denied coverage due to any reason other than your ability to pay, this is called guarantee issue. The ACA also includes provisions that ban rescission, meaning you cannot be dropped for any other reason other than failure to pay or fraud. Beyond that you can’t be charged a higher premium due to your health status and your health status can’t affect your ability to get or keep any health insurance covered by the Affordable Care Act. Please note that in some types of insurance, specifically supplemental health insurance options, don’t have to follow the same rules and regulations ACA compliant plans do.
ObamaCare makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick.
When they leave the exchanges that's exactly what they're doing. How many have already left?
Comments
This is kinda like that.
The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).
The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).
Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot be denied coverage due to any reason other than your ability to pay, this is called guarantee issue. The ACA also includes provisions that ban rescission, meaning you cannot be dropped for any other reason other than failure to pay or fraud. Beyond that you can’t be charged a higher premium due to your health status and your health status can’t affect your ability to get or keep any health insurance covered by the Affordable Care Act. Please note that in some types of insurance, specifically supplemental health insurance options, don’t have to follow the same rules and regulations ACA compliant plans do.
ObamaCare makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick.
I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.
http://obamacarefacts.com/questions/is-there-transgender-health-coverage/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/obamacare-now-pays-for-gender-reassignment.html
And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
The ACA helps transgender Americans due to its many patient protections such as:
Mandating that insurers must accept preexisting conditions like "gender identity disorder", which was often considered a preexisting condition before the law, or expanding coverage options to low and middle income Americans.
HondoFS
It's almost like you don't understand the difference or realize there's more than one treatment.