Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
This is why elections matter. I would vote for Charles Manson for potus b4 I vote a Republican to just stamp the craziness coming out of the House. Those people are corrupt lunatics.
115th Congress defunds ACA: Senate: 51-48 House:227-198; Executive Order signed 1/20
- Thread starter tru_m.a.c
- Start date
This is why elections matter. I would vote for Charles Manson for potus b4 I vote a Republican to just stamp the craziness coming out of the House. Those people are corrupt lunatics.
Uh, that's what all medical insurance does. You start paying it when you're young and healthy because everyone who doesn't die in a sudden accident eventually becomes old and sick.
Any imaginary medical insurance program that doesn't involve the young and healthy paying for the old and sick is called "people don't have insurance", and that just results in the system's prices going up as emergency rooms are over-utilized and medical debts keep getting defaulted on.
Prices didn't "spike" after Obamacare. They've been climbing for a long time, and the increases have been lesser since Obamacare than they were before it. I don't like the law and it's one of the many reasons that I haven't supported Obama since 2010, it needs a lot of improvement, but you keep making ridiculous arguments about it and pointing in the wrong direction.
I'm a fan of charter schools under careful control, but overall for-profit schools, especially colleges, have been absolutely crap except when they are carefully monitored. The best K-12 school systems in the world, across the board, are LESS market-modeled than the American system, and the US public university system is overall fantastic, especially compared to freaking Phoenix University and ITT Tech.
Market incentives for defense have resulted in the horrific "military-industrial complex" that has done a lot to making this country go downhill.
Who the hell is talking about single payer? There are numerous great models for paying for health care that aren't libertarian idiocy and aren't single-payer: Japan, Switzerland, Italy, France, and Germany all have different models, all have universal health care, none of them have single payer, and they all work better than ours.
* How many medical schools are you going to build for those new doctors and where is the money coming from? I agree we need a lot more doctors, but part of the process is a much higher investment in better education across the board.
Remove the FDA.
* Do you have the slightest clue how many chemicals are finding their way into your body? There are 60,000 chemicals being produced in the USA and the EPA has only banned 5 since it started. Now we're just finding out that things like benzenes and fluorocarbons are killing us, and they're already in everything. You want the same situation with poorly-regulated medicine and food too that we already have in the rest of your industrially-produced utopia?
* If it's what you're saying, I agree that medical patent go-arounds need to be ended and all patents need to be reduced in time and scope.
* The main "wealth transfer to multinational corporations or medical cartels" came early in the Bush administration with Plan D and there's still no one at all on either side of the aisle addressing it.
DeeringHighTornadoes
Rookie
can't believe there isn't nationwide healthcare coverage
even more can't believe people don't believe it should be a human right
get sick through no fault of your own and be bankrupt
even more can't believe people don't believe it should be a human right
get sick through no fault of your own and be bankrupt
All the lines of argument are right here for people to see on this page: 115th Congress dismantles Affordable Care Act: Obamacare Watch - Budget Resolution advances 51-48
It's very clearly laid out. There isn't any response for you to have. The only way you can go forward is by misunderstanding what I said, misreading your own links, or completely moving the goalposts. But in terms of the claims I made RIGHT THERE, with the evidence and lines of argument RIGHT THERE, you had nothing and can't have anything.
And yet you can't admit it, ever. That's why you're so useless to discuss with. You're obviously, provably wrong, on one point after another, with even your own links countering your point, but you can't admit it. You can't just say, "okay, I was wrong on that point, but I'm right on the other points", or "okay, now that I see what you're saying and understand, maybe I have to look at that again". If you actually could understand when you got things wrong, you could get better at this...but you're going nowhere fast.
You familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect? You should learn about it and reevalute.
Perfect example.
Once again.....wikipedia says:
And David says:
You are arguing for supply-side economics, no matter what Economic School you want to belong to. YOU JUST DID IT RIGHT THERE. Supply-side economics is basically just the ideas that Mundell put forth which he got from studying Mises.
But wait, is it possible for someone who capes for Austrian Economics to also argue for supply-side economic ideas? Hmmm....
Let me check the Foundation for Economic Education:
I never said you were part of the Supply Side School of Economics, I said that you caped for supply-side economics. And you do. That is a fact no matter what school of economic thought you belong to. I've already put forth one clear cite that shows your ideas exactly align with the basic definition of supply-side economics, and a second that shows that it is completely compatible with being part of the Austrian School.
You can admit, "Oh, I thought you meant something different". But you can't argue the facts - they're right there. All you can do at this point is move the goalposts or deny, deny, deny.
People only hate "socialism" when they see it benefiting others and not them directly.
They won't complain about garbage collection or road maintenance being done.
But God forbid the poor family down the street gets to afford healthcare or education and it's an egregious personal insult that "I" was personally taxed to finance that.
It's just funny that the richest country in the world can't figure out what the rest of the West accomplished decades ago
They won't complain about garbage collection or road maintenance being done.
But God forbid the poor family down the street gets to afford healthcare or education and it's an egregious personal insult that "I" was personally taxed to finance that.
It's just funny that the richest country in the world can't figure out what the rest of the West accomplished decades ago
Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
U fukkin burnouts. Who did u vote 4, slut?This country has the WOAT electorate for not electing this man.
David_TheMan
Banned
All the lines of argument are right here for people to see on this page: 115th Congress dismantles Affordable Care Act: Obamacare Watch - Budget Resolution advances 51-48
It's very clearly laid out. There isn't any response for you to have. The only way you can go forward is by misunderstanding what I said, misreading your own links, or completely moving the goalposts. But in terms of the claims I made RIGHT THERE, with the evidence and lines of argument RIGHT THERE, you had nothing and can't have anything.
And yet you can't admit it, ever. That's why you're so useless to discuss with. You're obviously, provably wrong, on one point after another, with even your own links countering your point, but you can't admit it. You can't just say, "okay, I was wrong on that point, but I'm right on the other points", or "okay, now that I see what you're saying and understand, maybe I have to look at that again". If you actually could understand when you got things wrong, you could get better at this...but you're going nowhere fast.
You familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect? You should learn about it and reevalute.
Perfect example.
Once again.....wikipedia says:
And David says:
You are arguing for supply-side economics, no matter what Economic School you want to belong to. YOU JUST DID IT RIGHT THERE. Supply-side economics is basically just the ideas that Mundell put forth which he got from studying Mises.
But wait, is it possible for someone who capes for Austrian Economics to also argue for supply-side economic ideas? Hmmm....
Let me check the Foundation for Economic Education:
I never said you were part of the Supply Side School of Economics, I said that you caped for supply-side economics. And you do. That is a fact no matter what school of economic thought you belong to. I've already put forth one clear cite that shows your ideas exactly align with the basic definition of supply-side economics, and a second that shows that it is completely compatible with being part of the Austrian School.
You can admit, "Oh, I thought you meant something different". But you can't argue the facts - they're right there. All you can do at this point is move the goalposts or deny, deny, deny.
Again kid, you can cry and cry, about old and current shyt, I don't waste my time with a person who has to lie to make a argument.
Im not in the supply sider for the main fact that supply siders encourage defecit spending.
Austrian economics isn't supply side economics and arguing for low taxation and reduced regulation isn't supply side economics, that you told this and told of chicago school and austrian schools both arguing the same thing but not being supply side supporters, really tells me all I need to know about you, you can't handle factual correction if you don't have your opinons accepted as fact.
Uh, that's what all medical insurance does. You start paying it when you're young and healthy because everyone who doesn't die in a sudden accident eventually becomes old and sick.
Any imaginary medical insurance program that doesn't involve the young and healthy paying for the old and sick is called "people don't have insurance", and that just results in the system's prices going up as emergency rooms are over-utilized and medical debts keep getting defaulted on.
Prices didn't "spike" after Obamacare. They've been climbing for a long time, and the increases have been lesser since Obamacare than they were before it. I don't like the law and it's one of the many reasons that I haven't supported Obama since 2010, it needs a lot of improvement, but you keep making ridiculous arguments about it and pointing in the wrong direction.
I'm a fan of charter schools under careful control, but overall for-profit schools, especially colleges, have been absolutely crap except when they are carefully monitored. The best K-12 school systems in the world, across the board, are LESS market-modeled than the American system, and the US public university system is overall fantastic, especially compared to freaking Phoenix University and ITT Tech.
Market incentives for defense have resulted in the horrific "military-industrial complex" that has done a lot to making this country go downhill.
Who the hell is talking about single payer? There are numerous great models for paying for health care that aren't libertarian idiocy and aren't single-payer: Japan, Switzerland, Italy, France, and Germany all have different models, all have universal health care, none of them have single payer, and they all work better than ours.
* How many medical schools are you going to build for those new doctors and where is the money coming from? I agree we need a lot more doctors, but part of the process is a much higher investment in better education across the board.
Remove the FDA.
* Do you have the slightest clue how many chemicals are finding their way into your body? There are 60,000 chemicals being produced in the USA and the EPA has only banned 5 since it started. Now we're just finding out that things like benzenes and fluorocarbons are killing us, and they're already in everything. You want the same situation with poorly-regulated medicine and food too that we already have in the rest of your industrially-produced utopia?
* If it's what you're saying, I agree that medical patent go-arounds need to be ended and all patents need to be reduced in time and scope.
* The main "wealth transfer to multinational corporations or medical cartels" came early in the Bush administration with Plan D and there's still no one at all on either side of the aisle addressing it.
No that isn't what insurance does. LOL It isn't a life time savings black to transfer young and healthy money to those who are sick.
Its a risk mitigation service plan, designed to pool different levels of risk together and be a safety measure of catastrophic accident, unfortunately in the US because of state interference, its used as mainly a backdoor money transfer from private individuals to corporate favored businesses and industry, like the AMA, big pharma, and etc. That said there is no reason it has to be this way, it can go back to being what car insurance is.
Prices spiked after Obamacare was passed, the subsidizes and state subsidy kickbacks that the GOP blocked were just that, subsidy, they didn't stop the spikes from happening. On top of that they forced carriers out of state markets, I lost my insurance supplier in my state and had to go BCBS, other states experienced the same thing with providers leaving the market entirely. Cost of medicine spiked just like higher education prices, because the market for medicine and healthcare is getting guaranteed funds because of the state partnership, they can charge whatever they want.
Dont know how you got on charter schools, but I'm not a fan of charter schools, even though I prefer the concept more than traditional government schools, the issue is that still are funded off government revenue, instead of private revenue in total, its just a way to continue the government interaction in the education market, under fake privatization.
As for medical schools, the market determines how many schools will open up, ideally it will be enough to support the market of potential students. On top of opening that up, kill the AMA ban on not recognizing doctors from outside the US, this would provide major incentives from doctors in foreign markets to move here, increasing the supply of doctors and again lowering cost of service.
Yes remove the FDA, chemicals find their way into my body and are routinely approved by the FDA to the point where I don't take the FDA's word of saftey for much, like its raising the acceptable level of arsenic found in apples for the benefit of corporate farmed apple suppliers. Fact is they've done comparisons between FDA and non-FDA europe with far lesser costs to market, and there is no difference in death rate as it relates to new medicines hitting the market. There is a death rate associated with the time it takes new medicines, drugs, and procedures to hit the market in the US, so the very functioning of the FDA costs american lives in delay, and money in additional regulatory associated costs.
No the wealth transfer to multinations came before Bush, it started with Medicare and Medicaid in 65.
Here is a nice overview
How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive
I was planning on replying to his post but refrained because I'm out of town enjoying myself. Didnt have mental energy to expend on it fully.Uh, that's what all medical insurance does. You start paying it when you're young and healthy because everyone who doesn't die in a sudden accident eventually becomes old and sick.
Any imaginary medical insurance program that doesn't involve the young and healthy paying for the old and sick is called "people don't have insurance", and that just results in the system's prices going up as emergency rooms are over-utilized and medical debts keep getting defaulted on.
Prices didn't "spike" after Obamacare. They've been climbing for a long time, and the increases have been lesser since Obamacare than they were before it. I don't like the law and it's one of the many reasons that I haven't supported Obama since 2010, it needs a lot of improvement, but you keep making ridiculous arguments about it and pointing in the wrong direction.
I'm a fan of charter schools under careful control, but overall for-profit schools, especially colleges, have been absolutely crap except when they are carefully monitored. The best K-12 school systems in the world, across the board, are LESS market-modeled than the American system, and the US public university system is overall fantastic, especially compared to freaking Phoenix University and ITT Tech.
Market incentives for defense have resulted in the horrific "military-industrial complex" that has done a lot to making this country go downhill.
Who the hell is talking about single payer? There are numerous great models for paying for health care that aren't libertarian idiocy and aren't single-payer: Japan, Switzerland, Italy, France, and Germany all have different models, all have universal health care, none of them have single payer, and they all work better than ours.
* How many medical schools are you going to build for those new doctors and where is the money coming from? I agree we need a lot more doctors, but part of the process is a much higher investment in better education across the board.
Remove the FDA.
* Do you have the slightest clue how many chemicals are finding their way into your body? There are 60,000 chemicals being produced in the USA and the EPA has only banned 5 since it started. Now we're just finding out that things like benzenes and fluorocarbons are killing us, and they're already in everything. You want the same situation with poorly-regulated medicine and food too that we already have in the rest of your industrially-produced utopia?
* If it's what you're saying, I agree that medical patent go-arounds need to be ended and all patents need to be reduced in time and scope.
* The main "wealth transfer to multinational corporations or medical cartels" came early in the Bush administration with Plan D and there's still no one at all on either side of the aisle addressing it.
One thing I have to correct. The issue isn't more medical schools and even more doctors. The issue is the need for a particular type of doctor, general practitioner. Most people go into specialities because there is more pay while the doctor that does preventative care and is the frontline of defense is the genera practice doctor who doesn't get paid as much as say an anesthesiologist.
You could build more medical schools all you want. Won't do anything unless you can get more to go into general practice. Also general practice requires more demand to drive up wages which means you need to make preventative care more attractive by lower healthcare costs in general to make people be more likely to go to the doctor for the small things. We both know that making sure it's accessible to the average American. David mistakenly believes the free market would accomplish this when we know the free market is amoral and immoral and if they can deny someone with epilepsy from ever attaining health insurance they would.
Government made it where they are required to cover the people who need it most since the free market before that failed.
When you're taxed a significant amount more for not having it, using how many are insured isn't a good metric
people are better off without health insurance
don't be surprised when the next wave of hospitals close
Just culling the herd breh. Clearing out the sick and elderly
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
You can call it a fine, but it's only legal because it's a tax
you're not though
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
You can call it a fine, but it's only legal because it's a tax
the amount of money is insignificant and if you're "poor" you're either not fined or can have medicaid
laughable assertion on your part
It's not insignificant
Regardless a mandate to have it reduces the ability to cheer that more people are covered. It's like bragging that every driver has car insurance