Fact: Single payer would save us money over the status quo.

Me telling my mortgage company to piss off and accept 30% of what my payment is supposed to be would also technically save me money over the status quo. I'd probably not like the consequences, however.

WTF kind of analogy is that?

Inso0, I always enjoy engaging in respectful dialogue with people making good faith arguments. However, this post of yours is not a good faith argument. It's a bad faith argument. Since I know you are making it in bad faith, the sheer stupidity of the analogy that would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of single payer healthcare proposals simply demonstrates that the post in question is an absolute joke of a post, and says nothing about your own personal intelligence level. This post should go **** itself.

As for your bad faith posting, you should knock it off, because it serves no purpose here. I hope that you'll stop doing it. I also know you're only around right now to revel in the misery of our response to the Barr letter, and you should know that William Barr is a very bad person who's made it his life's work to cover up one of the biggest presidential scandals ever (Iran-Contra) and likely to sugarcoat the findings of the special counsel related to another.

Enjoying this while the president has 15,000 children in cages says a lot about you as a person, and to that end I cannot tell you how I feel without violating forum rules... but locking up innocent children is evil, and taking joy in it is pathetic and disgusting. That's what Trump is doing. Supporting someone who does those things is... where I have to let you infer what I think about you as a human being.

Have a wonderful day Inso0!

You and I both know you're talking about Medicare for All when you say single payer, so don't play the bad faith argument bull****. It's not a good look.

It's no secret that the only way Medicare stays somewhat solvent is by reimbursing far less than the private insurers do. It's also undeniable that the specter of hospital bills keeps some people from using/abusing the system. If it's suddenly "free" then your usage rates are going to balloon. So tell me again how the combination of those facts is going to REDUCE healthcare costs. Pointing to some other tiny country and saying "they do it for less" isn't an answer.

There's another thread about this elsewhere, don't AIDS up this one with your nonsense bumper sticker arguments.

So youre AGAINST usage rates going up, ie sick people trying to get healthy?

Bless your heart

Inso0 prob thinks "usage rates" of medical services are like the "usage rates" of food stamps he envisions where poor people spend it all on Mountain Dew

Quoting a post generally means that you're using it as a reference for your own response.

You'll have to help me out by trimming your quote down to the part where I said what you're claiming, then maybe I can expand on it.

I think you got a little too excited there, friend.

btw, it's always amazing where healthcare suddenly becomes (for conservatives) this magic wand that turns the USA into an awful place, one where economies of scale do not exist, where the vast population of this country is a massive liability for delivering products and services. Talk to a conservative about healthcare and you'd think this country must still be some backwater ****hole straight out of the 1800s because you just cannot distribute widgets across this large of a geography, not possible, can't be done.

As Canada and Australia prove - geography and UHC don't mix.

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/map...ty_2010map.pdf


One of these things is not like the other.

Healthcare is one of the issues in my small sample size of trump voters where they agree with me. My online experience is it makes you a commie, for reasons. We can spend money to our hearts content on our military no prob but saving American lives directly is a no go.

GDP per capita in the US is 32% higher than Canada's. If they can afford UHC, so can we.

Geography? Seriously? lolllllllllll

I Am Very Smart And Making Serious Points

European population density is too high. We're stuck in the middle where UHC is impossible.

And Medicare for All would save us money on healthcare, and if your argument wasn't in bad faith that you're uninformed/stupid on the issue.

They've done studies on this, the studies find it would reduce costs and expand care. Basically the entire western world has done it successfully, but we can't here because REASONS AND MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

It's amazing how it's always USA #1 with right wingers until it comes to healthcare, and then it's "*GASP* We can't possibly afford that!"

It's disingenuous bull****, and you know it.

You're the one posting ridiculous bull**** arguments that we now have to respond to, ignore or tolerate because we're not allowed to tell you to **** off anymore, which is what you really deserve here when you make disingenuous arguments or completely fail to understand the issue you claim we're all wrong on.

LOL you can't possibly be this stupid Inso0, you have to be arguing in bad faith. You just have to. You have to know that a population density map of the United States would look pretty similar. You have to understand that, given that we've argued with you about gerrymandering and you've said that it's not the GOP's fault that most Democrats live in densely populated cities, etc, etc.

So stop arguing in bad faith.

I like medicare paying 30% less than private insurance is somehow seen as a negative.

If we really cared about America we'd get price gouged and be happy about it.

He actually said 30%, not 30% less, which is one of the many reasons why his post was complete BS.

But yeah, damn right we have to get price gouged and be happy about it. As long as the corporate shareholders and CEO's are making boatloads of money, 'cause God Bless America, am I right?

I don't get the outrage here. The DCCC is primarily funded by money raised by sitting congresspeople. You really think they should be okay with hiring consultants that represent their primary opponents? Anyway, I'm also skeptical it would have a significant impact as most large firms are unwilling to work for challengers already since access is so important to them and incumbents usually win. If anything, my guess is that this is more a signal of the declining power of the DCCC, shown by them formalizing a rule that was already implicit.

M4A means providers would be paid net 11% less while reducing administrative overhead

Yes, I do. I think a Democratic consultant should get to work for whoever they want to work for who is willing to hire them. So if one spotted AOC on the rise and decided to work with her on her primary challenge, then later wanted to work for a member of Congress who wanted to hire them, that should be totally fine.

I don't think they should make any attempt to limit primary challenges of Democrats by Democrats, they make the party stronger in the long run by keeping Congressional Dems accountable to their district.

This is the same type of thinking among the party establishment that had them tilting the 2016 primary toward Hillary. When the elites running the show try to tilt the playing field, it generally hurts the party, hurts the voters, and helps long-serving politicians and the GOP.

You don't want to get primaried and/or lose a primary? Do your job!

You're answering a different question here. There's obviously nothing wrong with a firm working with a primary challenger, and later working with that person if they win, but I'm not upset that incumbent Congress members aren't willing to fund such challenges as it obviously runs against their own interests. The interests of politicians and voters are not perfectly aligned.

It keeps them accountable to the activist base of the Democratic Party in their district, which is not quite the same thing.



I guess. My view is that this is the nature of democratic politics, you try to win elections. If you think incumbent politicians don't or shouldn't try to affect the resources and endorsements available to their opponents, then I don't know what model of politics you are using. I suppose there might be some idealistic politicians that don't try to use these advantages, but I don't know of any and I imagine they probably don't last long as elected officials anyway.

The first job of any politician is to win elections, and you're suggesting incumbents should be okay with helping their opponents win.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.995bce3cb7e3

what a failure

remember how popular Clinton was right after his presidency ended? how everyone said it was so great? same thing is happening to Obama, and the same thing is going to happen when everyone realizes it really wasn't very good

Good thing we had Obama’s measured pragmatism, otherwise we may never have passed Mitt Romneys GOP think tank originated health care policy with a 60 seat senate majority and a democratic house