This man is a crazy doctor, who believes in the most ridiculous things. He believes that all injures can be cured with self rehabilitation. He thinks that ALL pills are useless and that natural remedies are the only method for treatment. He broke his neck in a diving accident which is probably the reason he has such crazy ideas. This man is ludicrous and DOES NOT DO HIS JOB PROPERLY! I know this from experience. His medical licenses should be revoked.
You made two seemingly contradicting statements during the presentation here. (1) that the taxpayer should not have the burden of paying for medical expense not covered by their selected insurance because that individual made a conscious decision not to cover the unexpected expense. (2) That those who cannot afford premiums should receive some help (presumably gov't help), which would be paid the taxpayer. Is this a "can't afford" distinction? If so, why is it made? Thank you
@Chill4736 Thank you for noting this contradiction. Those who cannot afford medical care, or insurance to pay for it, are possibly deserving of charitable assistance from those who willingly offer it. The help that they receive should not be government assistance per forced collection from taxpayers.
This man is a crazy doctor, who believes in the most ridiculous things. He believes that all injures can be cured with self rehabilitation. He thinks that ALL pills are useless and that natural remedies are the only method for treatment. He broke his neck in a diving accident which is probably the reason he has such crazy ideas. This man is ludicrous and DOES NOT DO HIS JOB PROPERLY! I know this from experience. His medical licenses should be revoked.
drewja1 6 months ago
You made two seemingly contradicting statements during the presentation here. (1) that the taxpayer should not have the burden of paying for medical expense not covered by their selected insurance because that individual made a conscious decision not to cover the unexpected expense. (2) That those who cannot afford premiums should receive some help (presumably gov't help), which would be paid the taxpayer. Is this a "can't afford" distinction? If so, why is it made? Thank you
Chill4736 2 years ago
@Chill4736 Thank you for noting this contradiction. Those who cannot afford medical care, or insurance to pay for it, are possibly deserving of charitable assistance from those who willingly offer it. The help that they receive should not be government assistance per forced collection from taxpayers.
brightwriter 2 years ago