You seem to be confusing the Republican lies about the ACA with reality.
Most insurance is through your job and those plans didn’t change. Thus, you kept your doctor. Indeed, there were some changes where policies that didn’t really cover anything were done away with in exchange for actual insurance. That may have required people to switch to a different company and thus, depending upon which insurance plans their doctors accepted, may have required them to change doctors, but that’s true whenever you change plans.
Surely you aren’t saying that nobody has ever changed plans, have you? That your doctor has never changed which insurance plans they take?
And as all of the financial analyses have shown, the cost of insurance is less under the ACA than it would have been had it not passed. You see, insurance costs have always gone up. To pretend that somehow the ACA is responsible for any increase in costs is just another Republican lie. Instead, under the ACA, that growth curve has lowered (and in some areas, gone down). You are paying less under the ACA than you would be if it hadn’t passed.
Now, the Republicans have done a lot to sabotage the ACA. Marco Rubio’s gutting of payments to insurance companies to make up for the influx of new patients with pre-existing conditions (which they are not allowed to refuse) made it worse. The decision by the SCOTUS regarding Medicare expansion being optional has made it worse. Imagine how much better it would be if the Republicans would stop trying to end it but instead worked to make it better.
Of course, we all know what better means: Single-payer, universal coverage. That’s how Medicaid works and it is extremely efficient. That’s how the VA system works (even more “socialist” since the doctors work for the VA and they have their own hospitals) and it routinely provides better care for less money than private insurance.
So it would seem I was correct.
And amazingly, most people kept their doctor, they kept their plan, and they paid less than if the ACA hadn’t been enacted.
It’s like you don’t know what you’re talking about….
If you don’t like being tagged as a bigot, stop acting like one.
Don’t you find it interesting that Trump was adamant on multiple occasions that there were “good people on both sides” of a white supremacist rally while that doesn’t seem to be case regarding players in the NFL?
It’s precious how you think “Socialism” (not the capital “S”) is a bad thing. (chuckle) As if you knew what “Socialism” was. Hint: What do you think the military you revere so highly is?
Um, Serena has already said she wouldn’t be able to play against the top male players.
The issue comes down to the meaning of “best.” If it means “able to take on all comers of any type,” that’s one thing. If it means, “most achievements for their sport,” that’s another. The top level of the women’s game is a real thing and it requires real skill and talent to be able to be at the top of it because all the top players are at that level. That the top men could clean their clocks doesn’t change that fact. There’s a reason that Serena has more Grand Slam singles titles under her belt than any male player. There’s a reason that Graf has more time at #1 than any male player. There’s a reason that Navratilova has more Grand Slam titles than any male player. There’s a reason that Chris Everett was the winningest player in all of tennis with more match titles than any other player, male or female.
So the idea of “best” very much depends upon what you mean by that term. Even looking at just the women’s game, define what you mean by “best.” A case could easily be made for any of Serena, Graff, Navratilova, Everett, and Court. And all of their records surpass the comparable stats for the men. So in order to define “best” among all players female and male, you’re going to have to be more specific.
If all you mean is, “most likely to win a single match against any given opponent,” then yeah, it’s going to be a man. Somehow, I think most of us would consider that a pretty poor concept of “best.”
That’s the point. The contract of carriage binds both the passengers AND United. The airline can deny you boarding for almost any reason, but there is a specific list of reasons why they can refuse to transport you once you have boarded…and that they need the seat for an employee isn’t one of them. Once you have boarded, they can’t kick you off the plane without specific cause.
Or, you know, not. Given that Kaepernick has been doing a huge amount of charitable work, one has to wonder who the Fan Jerks of the Year were who thought he was some sort of jerk for pointing out the severe problem with racism we have in this country.
It’s precious how so many people like to blame the person pointing out the problem.
That Garfield has a girlfriend doesn’t mean he’s male.
That he is referred to as “he,” “him,” and “his” means he’s male.
He doesn’t like tomatoes and cucumbers? Because that’s all Greek Salad is. You can make it fancy with feta and olives, maybe some red onions, but it’s just tomatoes and cucumbers. No lettuce.
“Bruts”? They’re dry?
My, how the worm begins to turn!