Arkady
President
The expansion of Medicaid is only one part of what was done and that part was part of the sales pitch.So then, why didn't they sell it as a huge expansion of Medicaid?
The expansion of Medicaid is only one part of what was done and that part was part of the sales pitch.So then, why didn't they sell it as a huge expansion of Medicaid?
We all use the roads to different degrees, just like health insurance.Not really - the roads are something we can all use more or less equally. Your health care isn't...
The entire thing. You made a claim with no basis in anything I said.No. What part did I misunderstand? Try re-lying.
So you can't get into specifics because the truth makes you sad and so you lie.The entire thing. You made a claim with no basis in anything I said.
Here, specifically, is the claim you made that had no basis in anything I said:So you can't get into specifics because the truth makes you sad and so you lie.
Why do you keep dodging the second part of my posts?Virtue signaling isn't the goal; protecting the environment is. Why do you suppose I don't care about the anti-GMO movement, despite it being embraced by many liberals, in a way many would dismiss as virtue signaling? Simple: the science isn't there to support that anti-GMO position. As you know, I am guided by science, not faith. And that's why I would stop buying hybrids if the science came out the other way.
If you want people to respond to the second part of your posts, wouldn't you be better off including something worth responding to in those parts? In this case, the second half of your post was just the usual whining about me not repeating everything you said when I respond. We've gone over that ad naseum. You're free to continue trolling, but that doesn't mean you'll get a bite.Why do you keep dodging the second part of my posts?
Just because it makes you uncomfortable and sad doesn't mean it's not worth responding to.If you want people to respond to the second part of your posts, wouldn't you be better off including something worth responding to in those parts? In this case, the second half of your post was just the usual whining about me not repeating everything you said when I respond. We've gone over that ad naseum. You're free to continue trolling, but that doesn't mean you'll get a bite.
Link please to the quote where it was "sold" based on it being 3/4 to 4/5ths Medicaid expansion.The expansion of Medicaid is only one part of what was done and that part was part of the sales pitch.
Not "your" health insurance. Your analogy would be apt if we each got our own set of roads that we could use or not use as we require. And according to your analogy here, you could "require" a million dollars worth of roads, that we would have to provide for you even though we aren't allowed to use them, even while only using a few thousand dollars worth of roads ourselves.We all use the roads to different degrees, just like health insurance.
It's not about what you said, liar. It's about internalization. And you lied about that too.Here, specifically, is the claim you made that had no basis in anything I said:
So what you're saying (by omission) is that I got internalization exactly right.As you know, I wasn't saying anything like that. You chose chose to lie. Again.
Because the US funds the vast majority of medical research which they then use their single payer systems to negotiate pricing for the drugs and equipment based on marginal rather than average cost. Once the US goes single payer, the whole world engages in a race to the bottom of the health care quality scale. Be careful what you wish for.Those nations pay much less for much better results. They may be in crisis relative to their own high standards, but it's a crisis that's head and shoulders better than anything we´ve ever had.
Why do you find it impossible simply to tell the truth?It's not about what you said, liar. It's about internalization. And you lied about that too.
Why? I've made no claim that it was sold on those ratios. This is a common debate technique among right-wingers. They fear debating the actual points that their opponents make. So, instead, they try to hand their opponents a position to defend. Now I'm supposed to defend the idea it was sold on that particular ratio. But that's not what I said and I have no interest in reading your script.Link please to the quote where it was "sold" based on it being 3/4 to 4/5ths Medicaid expansion.
We all have the possibility of drawing heavily from insurance, or not doing so. That's what makes it insurance.Not "your" health insurance. Your analogy would be apt if we each got our own set of roads that we could use or not use as we require. And according to your analogy here, you could "require" a million dollars worth of roads, that we would have to provide for you even though we aren't allowed to use them, even while only using a few thousand dollars worth of roads ourselves.
If what I sought was wealth distribution, there'd be much more direct methods for that -- for example, just tax wealth progressively. This is about public health outcomes and the costs to achieve those. Every other wealthy nation has better outcomes at a lower price. If we've screwed ourselves over with a system that essentially subsidizes other countries, then that's all the more reason to change. And I proposed a specific change that would end or at least greatly reduce such a phenomenon, by raising drug costs abroad and lowering them here.Because the US funds the vast majority of medical research which they then use their single payer systems to negotiate pricing for the drugs and equipment based on marginal rather than average cost. Once the US goes single payer, the whole world engages in a race to the bottom of the health care quality scale. Be careful what you wish for.
Of course, it's not like medical excellence is what you are seeking, is it? It's the wealth redistribution. It's always the wealth redistribution with you people...
Said the Father of Lies.Why do you find it impossible simply to tell the truth?
Why do you dishonestly compare us to "other wealthy nations" that are completely different in terms of population and demographics? Why don't you give me an apples to apples comparison with another "wealthy" country that has comparable population and demographics?If what I sought was wealth distribution, there'd be much more direct methods for that -- for example, just tax wealth progressively. This is about public health outcomes and the costs to achieve those. Every other wealthy nation has better outcomes at a lower price. If we've screwed ourselves over with a system that essentially subsidizes other countries, then that's all the more reason to change. And I proposed a specific change that would end or at least greatly reduce such a phenomenon, by raising drug costs abroad and lowering them here.
And triggering, as I suggested, a grinding halt to medical research, as those nations' HC systems are already buckling under the current costs. That's the problem with these navel gazes of yours, they bear no semblance to the real world...If what I sought was wealth distribution, there'd be much more direct methods for that -- for example, just tax wealth progressively. This is about public health outcomes and the costs to achieve those. Every other wealthy nation has better outcomes at a lower price. If we've screwed ourselves over with a system that essentially subsidizes other countries, then that's all the more reason to change. And I proposed a specific change that would end or at least greatly reduce such a phenomenon, by raising drug costs abroad and lowering them here.
And, of course, not at all like "roads." What makes "insurance" well, "insurance" is that everyone pays the same cost based on their age and health condition. Or even just the same cost. What makes it welfare (and wealth redistribution) is when some people pay for their own "insurance" and part of that of the folks living down the road (or all of it in the case of those living under the bridge).We all have the possibility of drawing heavily from insurance, or not doing so. That's what makes it insurance.