It’s not cognitive dissonance.
PerformativeConcern
performativeconcern
I’m the kind of person that believes in basic, grade school, math you say? Does that qualify as an insult in your simple mind?
Disabled read/delivery receipts years ago. No one needs to know when I’ve read their text.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re just being a troll or you’re really this stupid.
“No one will pay anything. It’s free.”
I literally copied and pasted the section that describes how providers have to send in documentation to the secretary (presumably of health and human services) to be eligible to participate. What about needing to effectively apply reads as something other than OPTING THE FUCK IN to you.
To what end?
I’d rather have 7.65% of my income back.
“I’m only talking about one. I’m only discussing one.”
If 94% of people spend less than 1k/year and your family consisting of four (realistically two) people spends 4k WHAT DOES THAT MAKE THEM YOU SIMPLE FUCK?
It should mean something to everyone because it’s how you quantify the cost of doing anything else.
All I know is that whoever lets the rate changes expire is going to end up in political hot water.
That decision doesn’t even require that both applicants have shared their previous salary which is something that you absolutely shouldn’t be doing anyway.
No dumbass. It doesn’t say the costs account for those variables. The disclaimer literally says the numbers can vary wildly in light of those variables. What about the statement “any particular family could have significantly different costs” and a list of a half dozen variables that would influence that deviation is…
“Which is it?”
- While the MMI measures costs for a typical family of four, any particular family or individual could have significantly different costs.
“Are you willing to respond to what the content of the bill I’m referring to says?”
I’m looking at HR.676. You’re looking at S.1804. Doesn’t matter though.
“SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.”