If Medicare for all is such a slick no brainer
Comments
-
Baaaaaaaack Track. Yeah, blame me because you stuck your head up your ass and proclaimed the 10% to be made up of "fucked up" people.creepycoug said:
Oh, yeah. I forgot. You need everything spelled out for you in categorical terms so you don't make an idiot of yourself.SFGbob said:Really? So none of those 10% are people who are self-employed or young people they are just really "fucked up" people. Gosh I wish I could be smart like you.
And all this time I thought these really "fucked up" people, who of course you don't identify but for the sake of argument I'm going to assume they are poor and unemployed, were already covered by Medicaid.
But then again, I'm not smart like you. You believe that the 10% of uninsured people in the US are all homeless, poor people who aren't covered by Medicaid.
Yeah, you're a fucking genius.
Addendum to my last post: some of the 10% are employed and not homeless or suffering from some addiction or mental illness or condition that makes them uninsurable. Most of those people are uninsured because they can't afford it.
For the dip shit who needs it spelled out so he doesn't get confused, there are people who are employed, make enough $, don't have mental issues or suffer from other problems who just don't fucking feel like having health insurance. Let's make healthcare policy with those people squarely in focus.
Is that better Sally? You're the one who asked, "why can't they do what we do?" I gave you an answer. The clear-thinking and able want coverage and pay for it if they can swing it. Either way, we pay for the care of the uninsured anyway.
So now you're back to admitting that the 10% consists of mostly people aren't poor but just chose not to purchase health insurance for some reason. So then why do we have to change our entire healthcare system where 90% of the people have some form of coverage for the 10% who don't?
And fuck you with your "spelled out" bullshit. You were clearly claiming that the 10% consisted almost entirely of these supposedly "fucked up" people when the reality is that those people are already covered by Medicaid. -
As to your stupid question, it might help if you didn't complicate things so much. The 10% don't do what the rest of us do because they're fucked up you moron; and a lot of them will always be fucked up. The reasons why are infinite and range from the obvious to the subtle. There's no devil, just brain chemistry. Everybody but you, apparently, seems to know this. Whether to deal with them, insure them, step over them in the street or just accept that we're already indirectly paying for them is a matter of personal philosophy.
What a fucking lying piece of shit you are Coug.
-
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
-
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question? -
So people who pay taxes don't currently pay for medical care.SFGbob said:
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question?
-
Hondo, unlike you there is no dick in my mouth. What I said was perfect clear. For a Kunt who is constantly criticizing others reading comprehension yours sure sucks.2001400ex said:
So people who pay taxes don't currently pay for medical care.SFGbob said:
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question?
Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the taxpayer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.
-
You’re stupid.SFGbob said:
Hondo, unlike you there is no dick in my mouth. What I said was perfect clear. For a Kunt who is constantly criticizing others reading comprehension yours sure sucks.2001400ex said:
So people who pay taxes don't currently pay for medical care.SFGbob said:
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question?
Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the taxpayer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer. -
Yeah that made your comment so much more clear.SFGbob said:
Hondo, unlike you there is no dick in my mouth. What I said was perfect clear. For a Kunt who is constantly criticizing others reading comprehension yours sure sucks.2001400ex said:
So people who pay taxes don't currently pay for medical care.SFGbob said:
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question?
Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the taxpayer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer. -
Yes and that model where everything is spent by the government will be less gross spending than out current gov/private hybrid that is unsustainable and provides worse health care outcomes and covers fewer people than single payer systems.SFGbob said:
Hondo, unlike you there is no dick in my mouth. What I said was perfect clear. For a Kunt who is constantly criticizing others reading comprehension yours sure sucks.2001400ex said:
So people who pay taxes don't currently pay for medical care.SFGbob said:
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question?
Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the taxpayer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.
This is the point you keep *intentionally* missing. -
But but long wait lines and taxes!!!!HardlyClothed said:
Yes and that model where everything is spent by the government will be less gross spending than out current gov/private hybrid that is unsustainable and provides worse health care outcomes and covers fewer people than single payer systems.SFGbob said:
Hondo, unlike you there is no dick in my mouth. What I said was perfect clear. For a Kunt who is constantly criticizing others reading comprehension yours sure sucks.2001400ex said:
So people who pay taxes don't currently pay for medical care.SFGbob said:
The person who dodges that question is the one who isn't arguing in good faith. Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the tax payer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.HardlyClothed said:
If anyone was still wondering whether Bob engages in good faith. Your meandering between intentional and actual stupidity is certainly something.SFGbob said:
We are projected to spend $34 trillion in tax dollars over the next 10 years?allpurpleallgold said:How exactly would a program that costs 32 trillion over 10 years bankrupt the country when we’re already projected to spend 34 trillion?
Only if you have the belief that all of the money currently being spent is really the governments money therefore we'll be "saving" money if we go to single payer programs does your math work.
Now, would you care to answer the question?
Every dollar that we currently spend on healthcare doesn't come from the taxpayer. The system you want all of the money will come from the taxpayer.
This is the point you keep *intentionally* missing.
(I do chuckle at the taxes part in the poll that was posted. They didn't say that your taxes would go up less than your current insurance for most people.) -
I'm not missing your point at all. Your argument is essentially that all of the money really belongs to the government. And that there is no difference between tax dollars and private dollars. And that confiscating what is currently spent privately by individuals and adding it to what is currently spent by the government will give Medical coverage to all.
Btw, how much of what people spend on healthcare in this country is on behalf of things like cosmetic surgery, and lasik surgery? Is that part of the $34 trillion in healthcare spending?
Also, I kind of like my healthcare coverage and when I look at the kind of coverage offered my Medicaid I don't want anything to do with that kind of medical care. Will people on Medicaid be brought up to the same level of care I currently have or will my care be brought down to their level of care? And if they are to be brought up, what will that do to the cost? To bring them up to my level of coverage is going to cost a hell of lot more than what the government currently pays to cover Medicaid recipients. -
No. That's not the argument. At. All.SFGbob said:I'm not missing your point at all. Your argument is essentially that all of the money really belongs to the government. And that there is no difference between tax dollars and private dollars. And that confiscating what is currently spent privately by individuals and adding it to what is currently spent by the government will give Medical coverage to all.
Btw, how much of what people spend on healthcare in this country is on behalf of things like cosmetic surgery, and lasik surgery? Is that part of the $34 trillion in healthcare spending?
Also, I kind of like my healthcare coverage and when I look at the kind of coverage offered my Medicaid I don't want anything to do with that kind of medical care. Will people on Medicaid be brought up to the same level of care I currently have or will my care be brought down to their level of care? And if they are to be brought up, what will that do to the cost? To bring them up to my level of coverage is going to cost a hell of lot more than what the government currently pays to cover Medicaid recipients.
BTW. No one is advocating Medicaid for all. Dumbfuck -
Poor reading comprehension from Hondo.
-
Baaaaaaaaaaaack track. Like I said before, you go from rigid deductive reasoning to inductive guessing whenever the mood suits you. Fuck off with that. You don't have any fucking idea what I "meant", much less is your version of it clear. It clearly wasn't clear you butt fuck because you were fucking wrong. Again. As usual.SFGbob said:
Baaaaaaaack Track. Yeah, blame me because you stuck your head up your ass and proclaimed the 10% to be made up of "fucked up" people.creepycoug said:
Oh, yeah. I forgot. You need everything spelled out for you in categorical terms so you don't make an idiot of yourself.SFGbob said:Really? So none of those 10% are people who are self-employed or young people they are just really "fucked up" people. Gosh I wish I could be smart like you.
And all this time I thought these really "fucked up" people, who of course you don't identify but for the sake of argument I'm going to assume they are poor and unemployed, were already covered by Medicaid.
But then again, I'm not smart like you. You believe that the 10% of uninsured people in the US are all homeless, poor people who aren't covered by Medicaid.
Yeah, you're a fucking genius.
Addendum to my last post: some of the 10% are employed and not homeless or suffering from some addiction or mental illness or condition that makes them uninsurable. Most of those people are uninsured because they can't afford it.
For the dip shit who needs it spelled out so he doesn't get confused, there are people who are employed, make enough $, don't have mental issues or suffer from other problems who just don't fucking feel like having health insurance. Let's make healthcare policy with those people squarely in focus.
Is that better Sally? You're the one who asked, "why can't they do what we do?" I gave you an answer. The clear-thinking and able want coverage and pay for it if they can swing it. Either way, we pay for the care of the uninsured anyway.
So now you're back to admitting that the 10% consists of mostly people aren't poor but just chose not to purchase health insurance for some reason. So then why do we have to change our entire healthcare system where 90% of the people have some form of coverage for the 10% who don't?
And fuck you with your "spelled out" bullshit. You were clearly claiming that the 10% consisted almost entirely of these supposedly "fucked up" people when the reality is that those people are already covered by Medicaid.
You're a classic prick. You want to reduce everything to a moral failing to make you feel better about your miserably mediocre circumstances. So you assume motive to me and others than you're just imagining or making up, like Obama's draft dodging. I clearly said that the reasons for the 10% are infinite and range from the obvious to the subtle. Were those words too big for your white trash brain? -
Yeah, here you are clearly saying that the 10% consisted of people who aren't poor but who chose not to purchase health insurance.creepycoug said:
Baaaaaaaaaaaack track. Like I said before, you go from rigid deductive reasoning to inductive guessing whenever the mood suits you. Fuck off with that. You don't have any fucking idea what I "meant", much less is your version of it clear. It clearly wasn't clear you butt fuck because you were fucking wrong. Again. As usual.SFGbob said:
Baaaaaaaack Track. Yeah, blame me because you stuck your head up your ass and proclaimed the 10% to be made up of "fucked up" people.creepycoug said:
Oh, yeah. I forgot. You need everything spelled out for you in categorical terms so you don't make an idiot of yourself.SFGbob said:Really? So none of those 10% are people who are self-employed or young people they are just really "fucked up" people. Gosh I wish I could be smart like you.
And all this time I thought these really "fucked up" people, who of course you don't identify but for the sake of argument I'm going to assume they are poor and unemployed, were already covered by Medicaid.
But then again, I'm not smart like you. You believe that the 10% of uninsured people in the US are all homeless, poor people who aren't covered by Medicaid.
Yeah, you're a fucking genius.
Addendum to my last post: some of the 10% are employed and not homeless or suffering from some addiction or mental illness or condition that makes them uninsurable. Most of those people are uninsured because they can't afford it.
For the dip shit who needs it spelled out so he doesn't get confused, there are people who are employed, make enough $, don't have mental issues or suffer from other problems who just don't fucking feel like having health insurance. Let's make healthcare policy with those people squarely in focus.
Is that better Sally? You're the one who asked, "why can't they do what we do?" I gave you an answer. The clear-thinking and able want coverage and pay for it if they can swing it. Either way, we pay for the care of the uninsured anyway.
So now you're back to admitting that the 10% consists of mostly people aren't poor but just chose not to purchase health insurance for some reason. So then why do we have to change our entire healthcare system where 90% of the people have some form of coverage for the 10% who don't?
And fuck you with your "spelled out" bullshit. You were clearly claiming that the 10% consisted almost entirely of these supposedly "fucked up" people when the reality is that those people are already covered by Medicaid.
You're a classic prick. You want to reduce everything to a moral failing to make you feel better about your miserably mediocre circumstances. So you assume motive to me and others than you're just imagining or making up, like Obama's draft dodging. I clearly said that the reasons for the 10% are infinite and range from the obvious to the subtle. Were those words too big for your white trash brain?
As to your stupid question, it might help if you didn't complicate things so much. The 10% don't do what the rest of us do because they're fucked up you moron; and a lot of them will always be fucked up. The reasons why are infinite and range from the obvious to the subtle. There's no devil, just brain chemistry. Everybody but you, apparently, seems to know this. Whether to deal with them, insure them, step over them in the street or just accept that we're already indirectly paying for them is a matter of personal philosophy.
Fucking lying piece of shit.
The people who you initially claimed were part of the 10% are already covered dumb fuck. None of the people you initially described are part of the 10%. I don't need to guess Kunt, you talked straight out of your fucking ass, got caught doing so, back tracked like a mother fucker and are now lying about it.
-
So Coug, why would you claim that the 10% of people who are uninsured are "fucked up" people and then go onto describe people who aren't part of the 10%?
If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance are they "fucked up" and will they "always be fucked up?"
Cue the Kunt act.
-
He already discussed those questions. But you're obsession and lack of reading comprehension is noted.SFGbob said:So Coug, why would you claim that the 10% of people who are uninsured are "fucked up" people and then go onto describe people who aren't part of the 10%?
If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance are they "fucked up" and will they "always be fucked up?"
Cue the Kunt act. -
Isn't that cute, Hondo offering board genius Coug some cover.2001400ex said:
He already discussed those questions. But you're obsession and lack of reading comprehension is noted.SFGbob said:So Coug, why would you claim that the 10% of people who are uninsured are "fucked up" people and then go onto describe people who aren't part of the 10%?
If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance are they "fucked up" and will they "always be fucked up?"
Cue the Kunt act. -
Just pointing you the answers to your questions.SFGbob said:
Isn't that cute, Hondo offering board genius Coug some cover.2001400ex said:
He already discussed those questions. But you're obsession and lack of reading comprehension is noted.SFGbob said:So Coug, why would you claim that the 10% of people who are uninsured are "fucked up" people and then go onto describe people who aren't part of the 10%?
If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance are they "fucked up" and will they "always be fucked up?"
Cue the Kunt act. -
Gaybob seems upset.
lol -
Naaaah, I'm having a great time.
-
I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart. -
SFGbob said:
Yeah, you're too smart for me Flea. That "orange slice" crack was devastating. I don't believe I'll ever be able to recover. Whenever you want to deal in substance you let me know, and I'll hand you your ignorant ass.dflea said:
Let me translate:SFGbob said:I asked the question the other day and of course not a single liberal Kunt responded although Flea did show us all his ass.
According to liberals today medical care is a "right." Can someone please identify any other "rights" that require other people to pay for them?
And why are we going to destroy the entire health insurance industry to provide coverage to the 10% of the people who have no health insurance coverage?
Why can't those 10% do what the rest of us do in order to secure health insurance? Why are we going to tear up the entire system in order to provide coverage for this 10%?
I woke up the other day looking for something to snivel like a little fucking girl about - and I found it!
So I came to HH, where I spend my whole pitiful life arguing politics with Hondo, to cry like a bitch.
'flea clowned me for being the drippy cunt I am after I demanded an explanation from the liberals, so now I'm going to cry about that.
lol
What a goat.
You better give your pal Coug an ass tonguing. He just claimed poor people are covered by Medicaid.
Actually, it was pretty fucking funny. But I guess you would have to lead a miserable and pathetic life on these boreds for the last 15 years to understand his dry humor.
Also, in another thread you finally earned the Donkey-bomb from him. So yore moving up in the world. You have that going for you. Which is nice.
@dflea -
Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?Rubberfist said:
I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.
I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.
Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat. -
I agree with you. But if I read that chart right. It shows that through 2007, public expenditures are less than private. No?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?Rubberfist said:
I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.
I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.
Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat. -
*sigh* The point is that public expenditures are a Yuge part of our system. The fact that they make up around 50% of the market tells you just what a "free" market it is. A pure free market should have 0% public expenditures.2001400ex said:
I agree with you. But if I read that chart right. It shows that through 2007, public expenditures are less than private. No?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?Rubberfist said:
I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.
I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.
Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.
C'mon Hondo, it's NOT hard. -
And further, part of why I like to use the historical numbers, is because you can see how sharply spending (both public and private) took off exactly when the government entered the market in 1965. There's also sharp increases with the various passages of each version of medicare.
If your argument is that our current system is inefficient, there is strong correlated evidence that government spending, and the crowding out it causes the private sector, is what is driving those inefficiencies. Keep blaming the private sector for the increasing failings of an increasingly socialist system. It's the socialist playbook. -
Well then what you are saying is, half the market is already government ran, is not a big stretch to make the entire system government ran.UW_Doog_Bot said:
*sigh* The point is that public expenditures are a Yuge part of our system. The fact that they make up around 50% of the market tells you just what a "free" market it is. A pure free market should have 0% public expenditures.2001400ex said:
I agree with you. But if I read that chart right. It shows that through 2007, public expenditures are less than private. No?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?Rubberfist said:
I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.
I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.
Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.
C'mon Hondo, it's NOT hard. -
UW_Doog_Bot said:
And further, part of why I like to use the historical numbers, is because you can see how sharply spending (both public and private) took off exactly when the government entered the market in 1965. There's also sharp increases with the various passages of each version of medicare.
If your argument is that our current system is inefficient, there is strong correlated evidence that government spending, and the crowding out it causes the private sector, is what is driving those inefficiencies. Keep blaming the private sector for the increasing failings of an increasingly socialist system. It's the socialist playbook.
I'd like to see the chart through 2017.
I'd also like to see GDP through 2017 as well. -
komo4buttfucker, it's not hard. I believe government spending exceeded private in the last few years but I could be wrong.2001400ex said:UW_Doog_Bot said:And further, part of why I like to use the historical numbers, is because you can see how sharply spending (both public and private) took off exactly when the government entered the market in 1965. There's also sharp increases with the various passages of each version of medicare.
If your argument is that our current system is inefficient, there is strong correlated evidence that government spending, and the crowding out it causes the private sector, is what is driving those inefficiencies. Keep blaming the private sector for the increasing failings of an increasingly socialist system. It's the socialist playbook.
I'd like to see the chart through 2017.
I'd also like to see GDP through 2017 as well.
