@UniteRight For many it will be lower cost. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/ …
But I doubt you'd care to entertain conflicting data.
@WillNotBeSwayed But it was gutted by the money-grubbers, like every other U.S. law, so what we're left with is only a marginal improvement.
-
-
@emlynaddison dont get me wrong, I am 4 providing cheaper alternative, but I am not in favor of forcing people 2 participate who dont want 2
-
@WillNotBeSwayed There is no other way to ensure that the system stays funded while serving all. This was the problem.
-
@emlynaddison if it was so great enough people would WANT to participate.
-
@WillNotBeSwayed Who WANTS car insurance?
-
@emlynaddison smart people. I've always had full coverage even tho not required.
-
@WillNotBeSwayed You just hit the nail on the head. When you can tell me how we better educate Americans to UNDERSTAND why it's so...
-
@emlynaddison liability is req by law. Not full coverage. Health ins is relatable to full coverage.
-
@WillNotBeSwayed As one of the justices said, health insurance is actually unlike anything else; there are no good comparisons.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@emlynaddison the law has good parts to it and is a good conversation starter to a better system. There are many invasive parts of the law.
-
@WillNotBeSwayed The SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional, though, for my part, it's an empty judgement because the public option was killed.
-
@emlynaddison access 2 ones bank/financial records, 3.8% tax on home sales, too invasive for an option thats supposed to be sought after.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.