The condescension was quite on target and just a response to your own nastiness. If you do not like it, I make two suggestions: 1) Post civilly and you will get the same in response; 2) Demonstrate some understanding of the topic being discussed and respond in context.
No, your vapid arrogance and condescension are more what one comes to expect from someone who has absolutely no clue of what it is they are attempting to debate. What typically happens when one debates you is that you then engage in personal attacks and obfuscations and eventually enter in the circle of futility by constantly making new uninformed statements eventually circling back to the original uninformed statement.
Nothing in my initial remarks were nasty; they were seeking to debate the merits of your silly notions that denying benefits is the same as a breach of contract.
I am a direct reflection of the nastiness, arrogance and condescension you spew whenever your nonsensical arguments are exposed for what they are; uninformed.
Your agenda is wha all extreme rightwing hyperpartisans have. Only speak in misrepresentations, foolish generalizations, inaccurate fear mongering, out of context comments, and outright dishonesty. Unless you have changed, and this thread seems to show that you haven't, your posts go along with your agenda.
Your nonsensical perceptions aside, wow trite and amusing that you would now engage in empty headed hyperbolic demagoguery to avoid the fact that you are an uninformed partisan hack who couldn’t debate without becoming uncivil and projecting your complete lack of civility onto others.
I would love to have you honestly show where I have not been factual, honest and inaccurate in any of my statements without your typical uncivil arrogance and condescension.
The ONLY ones being dishonest in this debate are you and your pals on the forum suggesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with your laughable positions is nothing more than an extreme rightwing hyper partisan.
Just one time it would be nice to see you have an honest coherent debate instead of engaging into your typical playground uninformed demagoguery.
And that's not what we are talking about.
It is definitely what we are debating and your attempts to claim that we can only debate points that you wish to are beyond absurd, they are childish and immature.
I know it's hard, but try to stay on topic.
See above.
The notion that you can lecture anyone on the dealings with insurance companies is laughable at best.
The notion that you can be some expert on tort law and how economics actually work is laughable and the notion that your “self proclaimed” expertise on insurance has anything to do with this debate is ironic.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? If this occurs, there is an appeal process that is in ALL insurance company agreements if you have a dispute. Once this process is exhausted (and there are usually 4-5 levels), then you can go the legal route. Same as with Medicare.
So, as I said, these two scenarios are identical.
I absolutely know what I am talking about and have clearly illustrated that it happens to be you who are obfuscating, projecting, lacking honesty and integrity and engaging in hyperbolic demagoguery.
Your statements above don’t change what we are saying; if you have a dispute with a private insurance company, you can seek remedy within our courts. If you have this same issue with a PUBLICLY run healthcare system, there will be none. This is the point Void and I were trying to make and which you so desperately attempted to avoid with your nonsensical blather about breaches and denial of coverage being one and the same; which they are not.
In addition, we attempted to explain that at least with competition and private markets there is a choice and if a company is not properly serving its customers or acting in an illegal manner, they will eventually go out of business, be bought up by companies that operate more efficiently, you will still have a CHOICE as to where you go and with competition, costs will go down and stay competitive.
Government run programs do not provide that option; you will no longer have a choice, costs will skyrocket and they will operate very inefficiently resulting in less choices, long waiting lists and fewer doctors and nurses to treat patients not to mention the loss of research and development that results in technological breakthroughs.
Those are FACTS based on the data available and historic record.
Get back to us when you have some basic understanding of how insurance companies operate. When you do, perhaps then you can add substance to this discussion.
Get back to me when you can have an HONEST debate dealing with the FACTS and not engage in your typical hyper emotional hyperbolic blather and uninformed notions about the legal system, economics and your typical lack of substance.
