- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 69,534
- Reaction score
- 15,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Pick your favorite way. It makes no difference to the question I asked.
What service do insurance companies provide?
Pick your favorite way. It makes no difference to the question I asked.
Pick your favorite way. It makes no difference to the question I asked.
What service do insurance companies provide?
As you have said, Voidwar, it is your term...therefore it is up to you to provide an example...which is what I've been requesting.
Your term, your example. Thanks in advance.
Whats your favorite color ?
You are in a hole. Stop digging.
You are obviously not looking to discuss the public option.
My term is in my question...
I am not in any hole, because I am not the one running from the original question for 16 pages.
Which you have been asked to clarify for pages. Since it is your term, it is up to YOU to clarify it and give examples.
I am not fooled CaptainCourtesy. You don't fail to understand my term, you just know you can't answer the question unless you substitute it. No-one has been fooled by your feigned illiteracy from the get go.
You are running from my original question.
.2 The particulars of any breach of contract suit have no bearing on the question. The question was:And to whom would one appeal a breached contract ?
No one is fooled by your feigned outrage, Voidwar.
You can't define your term because you know it means the same as mine.
This is why you have been avoiding a simple request to clarify from the get-go.
Your question is a red herring. It is an irrelevant side issue that has no bearing on the question I asked, as I already explained to you here :
I am not feigning anything. I am not outraged.
If it did mean the same, you would not have needed to substitute it, now would you ?
I have not been avoiding anything.
It is YOU who have been avoiding my original question for 17 pages.
A simple examination of the order of posts on page two proves it.
No, you wish it was a red herring. It is not.
Red herring
Main article: Red herring (idiom)
Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring".
You know how the answer would make your stance look.
...I'm certain, still, without Voidwar clarifying his term, and continuing to stall debate.
Then we all must wonder why you are avoiding clarifying your terms.
A lot of those things are horrendous, bureaucratic monstrosities. It takes a lot to avoid that will a public option, though it would be possible.If I was American, possibly, yes. It'd depend on the charges and what the plan covered. Lord knows if they'll actually be able to establish a public option that isn't stripped down to appease those who love their socilaised roads, schools, libraries and fire departments but are somehow convinced that socialised medicine will be a horrendous beauracratic montrosity.
Maybe you just don't know what a red herring is . . .
The thrust of my question was to whom would one appeal a breach of contract. Your attempt to bring up the particulars of any one breach of contract suit, are immaterial to the question of whom one would appeal the suit to.
Simply false. I already told you, pick your own favorite, it makes no difference to my question.
i would if i had the need, absolutely.Due to the assumed intellectual characteristics of the users on this forum due to your pursuit of "intellectual" debate, most of you probably have jobs and already have healthcare, I was interested in real numbers on the consumer base of the public option. Please vote truthfully.
wow......why is opting, and paying for, a public option considered mooching? MOST of us pay taxes.Dear ****ing god, yes. I've seen how Medicare works first hand while working in the health care industry.
I trust pretty much anyone to handle things better than the government does.
And myself, I KNOW I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding that I'm not allowed to eat this or drink that or participate in that kind of sport because they don't want to foot the bill should I get sick or injured. I also don't want to pay out the ass in taxes to fund something as sad as medicaid/medicare, be denied payment of my services and be too broke to pay for it myself because I'm being taxed to death to pay for "healthcare" that rations its services.
And I KNOW I DON'T want some government group making decisions about my personal life choices and healthcare. I do NOT want the government to have a vested interest in my health and as such, have reason and ability to limit my personal freedoms and choices.
At least for now I can.
Who says I would even have it?
I always do.
I have no problem with people choosing to mooch off the government as long as I can choose not to, and choose not to pay for it with my taxes.
Public option is absolutely fine with me as long as I can opt out of using it and opt out of paying for it. In that case, I consider the government just another insurance agency - As long as they refrain from banning "unhealthy" foods or activities and/or refrain from mandating certain activities.
I know.
This is the red herring. You are complaining about CC switching terms when it is apparent that they are talking about the same thing.
Okay, denial of benefits it is.
Since it is obvious to me that you are unable to understand what this thread is about, I will allow the OP to tell you:
As usual, TD, you have been exposed as a liar, and someone who has no intention of discussing issues, but would rather just spew their foolish extreme rightwing partisan hackery...and ignore the issues in the thread.
As for the rest of your nonsensical typical irrelevancy? Basement material.