@WillNotBeSwayed There is no other way to ensure that the system stays funded while serving all. This was the problem.
-
-
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison if it was so great enough people would WANT to participate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison smart people. I've always had full coverage even tho not required.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LibertyLvnIndie
@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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison liability is req by law. Not full coverage. Health ins is relatable to full coverage.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LibertyLvnIndie
@WillNotBeSwayed And when they DON'T have full coverage, who pays when they go to the E.R.? We do. Either way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison the others insurance does. Full coverage covers your own vehicle.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LibertyLvnIndie
@WillNotBeSwayed Again, when THEY don't have insurance and you're left holding the E.R. bill, who ends up paying?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison they would be breaking the law i hope you realize that requiring people to have health ins doesn't mean they all will.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@WillNotBeSwayed Breaking the law did not appear to impact their decision. Evidently. And yes, neither would this, but it's a better model.
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.