She is also a healthcare advocate to help people navigate through the medical obstacles put in place to lower the expenses of insurance companies.
I know people who do the same job…of various political persuasions.
To a man all of them would tell you “sell across state lines” and “tort reform” will not do much of anything to lower costs and improve access to healthcare.
That’s not what those canards are designed to do.
Well…the canards are designed to make you THINK that’s what they’ll do…and since you like to dream…
If she’s the one who taught you want “tort system” means…consider new sources for your medical system expertise.
1 Like
I agree that insurance companies would be more competitive applying this change in the law and that too would lower expenses to the insured. That isn’t actually attacking though what we’re discussing but it should be a part of the overall solution.
Guys, don’t tell him insurance companies can already sell across state lines…
Oh…you’re awake now? Greaaaaaaaaat. Now…stop with the assuming. It makes you look like an assume.
When did that change come about?
I don’t believe that’s true. They can sell in any state in which they’re certified. They can’t be certified in one state and sell in another unless they’re also certified there.
I did not assume anything. I made a conditional statement.
States can and have made compacts where a certification in one allows them to sell in any in the compact.
NARRATOR: It made no difference.
It would be interesting explaining that to Venezuelans, or better yet if a republican was running for president as a “”Republican Fascist” and then started trying to explain how fascism isn’t the dirty word it was in the past, and is just misunderstood.
I was unaware of that compact.
A quick perusal reveals the compact covers several types of insurance.
It appears to cover long-term and disability coverage but doesn’t include regular health insurance.
Yet you keep posting
No that is what you are doing, he is posting actual facts
Oh…good one. 
Yep
@Smyrna…stop committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well if you want to have a serious discussion with people.
You are not more enlightened than everyone else.
People have knowledge and experience here that you do not. It’s a fallacy to assign political beliefs or brainwashing to all your opponents’ arguments as a substitute for actually debating. (Note I said AS A SUBSTITUTE before I hear cries of whataboutism).
It doesn’t further discussion but instead division.
And finally it’s actually an insult to other posters here that you keep doing it. In fact you’ve directly called out people for simply “spewing”…so it could be considered abuse of guest.
2 Likes
You could conclude that if…I attempted to back up my claim with a source…other than myself? What I tend to do as I walk my path in this life…is to keep my eyes and ears open, meditate on what I’m personally observing, look for patterns, attempt to connect the dots and then draw conclusions. It’s how I roll my friend. The good news is…I’m satisfied enough with my high standards for accuracy and my end results that…I keep on…keepin on.
You havent backed up anything with anything, and you have repeatedly shown you do not know the correct methodology for properly testing a hypothesis.
I can also conclude that when you fail to back up your claim because you have no source like is the case here.
