@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...
-
-
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 As one of the justices said, health insurance is actually unlike anything else; there are no good comparisons.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
-
Replying to @LibertyLvnIndie
@WillNotBeSwayed Ah, I see. When you wrote "liability is req by law. Not full coverage" I assumed you meant auto ins. I had seen this a lot.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison I did. You compared ACA to being req to have car insurance. Car ins only req 4 liability...which is to protect others not self
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LibertyLvnIndie
@WillNotBeSwayed But the logic stands: when OTHERS aren't insured, who foots the bill?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison tax payers usually. I understand this. Never said I was against principle of ACA but am against invasive parts of enforcing it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@WillNotBeSwayed Of course it's not perfect, in fact it's a very distant cousin of what it was *intended* to be, but at least it's movement.
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.