I laughed at this … you’re the man Zep … don’t ever change lol
1 Like
That he’s the poorest Senator? Who fucking cares? No one. He makes 4x the national average for a household. Definitely a man of the people.
No, you fucking haven’t. GTFO.
Belgium:
Individual Rate: up to 64% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 21%
UK
Individual Rate: up to 62% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 20%
Finland
Individual Rate: up to 62% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 24%
Sweden
Individual Rate: up to 60% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 25%
Canada
Individual Rate: up to 59% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 5%
Japan
Individual Rate: up to 56% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 8%-10%
Austria
Individual Rate: up to 55% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 10%-20%
Denmark
Individual Rate: up to 56% plus a Vat/GST/Consumption Tax of up to 8%-10%
So on and so forth…
Derpy McDerperton, something like 60% of healthcare programs are through work and something like 80% of premiums are paid for by the company. Someone will have to foot this bill.
Prove it.
Whatever you say, fucktard.
It’s the same tired bullshit with you.
You’re a dense fuck. The Stem Cell Institute is selling unvarified cures to other dense fucks like yaself for a profit. How noble.
Lol, zooooom. Look up or you’ll miss the point
A figure quoted by Medicare For All supplied by the OECD.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Cost_Per_Person
So according to them this country would cut it’s healthcare costs over twice as much. Again, how awful.
Have already done so plenty of times. Not just blog posts as you claim but real life studies. Like from Commonwealth or the W.H.O.
No, you fucking haven’t GTFO
Yes, I have several times and will do so again, just to prove your wrong again. Shall I?
something like 60% of healthcare programs are through work and something like 80% of premiums are paid for by the company. Someone will have to foot this bill.
Oh no companies will save money as well.
which translates into more money in he public’s pocket. How awful.
Prove it.
According to the OCED it will be a savings of over half.
Another article in regards to a study.
Oh no more savings. I could go on and on but you’ve been brainwashed too much and your ability to think clearly is gone by the decades of propaganda you bought in to.
You’re a dense fuck. The Stem Cell Institute is selling unvarified cures to other dense fucks like yaself for a profit. How noble.
First, they have never called the cures. Maybe the people who have received the treatment have.
Thousands of people have been treated by this clinic and all you can come up with is profit and being unverified.
Once again, you lack the ability to discern the difference between monopolistic profit and those who aren’t.
As far as verification, why are citizens from all over the world traveling there to get treated by all of these rumors? The fact of the matter here is that thousands of people are being helped by this therapy and this is far better than clinical trials as these are real human subjects. However our citizens can’t as this is incredibly disruptive of the pharma industry and their profits matter the mot. So the slow down the progress as much as they can to keep a hold of their power and profit. But the writing is already on the wall with the passage of HB810 in Texas. once this reaches the tipping point Big Pharma’s days will be numbered. And I for one will be incredibly happy as they have decided their profits are more important than the suffering of the public.
I suppose you will be left crying. Which is probably the same thing you’ll be doing once Medicare For All is passed.
Lol, zooooom. Look up or you’ll miss the point. Once again, it is you that have missed the point.
This is called confirmation bias.
Should I take the 5 minutes it would take to dismantle this?
Of course, in your world, they’re an authority on the matter. They stand for what you stand for. Huge shocker there. Stop the presses.
Go for it, numbnuts. Can’t wait for darealnewz link.
Dumb as a rock.
Wrong. According to Medicare for all.
Zep nonsense talking point #55 Nice opinion piece form “The New Republic”. I sure those 3 paragraphs were well researched. At least the Quora piece looks somewhat thougth out.
Point missed per usual. As does the rest of your post.
Lol, Jesus H. This isn’t even fun anymore. Your material is so predictably sad.
We obviously have a fundamental disagreement.
I follow the preponderance of evidence where it leads and do not worry about labels. You reject the majority of evidence and listen t your ideology no matter how foolish it makes you look. Bravo for being a loyal soldier!
So according to them this country would cut it’s healthcare costs over twice as much. Again, how awful.
Of course, in your world, they’re an authority on the matter. They stand for what you stand for. Huge shocker there. Stop the presses.
No it is what the majority of evidence says. So once again you are wrong.
Point missed per usual. As does the rest of your post. Another fundamental misunderstanding of profit. You can’t admit to the difference because it undermines your “free market” bullshit.
According to the OCED it will be a savings of over half.
Wrong. According to Medicare for all.
Wrong Medicare for all got it’s info from the OCED.
Read the article.
Correct, I use my brain and you’re a fucking moron.
How can that be when:
You clearly don’t follow the evidence and are blinded by your ideology. Derelict.
1 Like
No I follow evidence and you do what your ideology tells you despite the evidence. Like a good little brainwashed soldier.
All one has to do is objectively read over the posts. Very simple.
if only you were capable of such a thing…You’ve yet to demonstrate you can do as you say one should do…
1 Like
1 Like
How dare you sully the genius that is Thomas Dolby with your baseless association with the likes of the droog that is Zep. For Shame.
2 Likes
Yeah, evidence vs. accusations. Like I said, very simple.
Well, no. You didn’t say that. You said:
That is not the same as saying:
These appear to be two very separate discussions.
The former requires one to
the other is just trying to move goal posts or some such (not really sure what your point is with
since it is a non-sequitor of the former. Unless you’d like to (or even are mentally able to) elucidate - that’d be peachy.
2 Likes
No, you follow “evidence” cherrypicked by groups you like because they spout the same bullshit you do. Case and point, linking to Medicare for all, a group that clearly cherrypicked data to tell the story they wanted to tell.
It’s whatever, though. I’ve already crushingly dismantled every single one of your talking points before. You are simply too blinded by YOUR ideology to recognize it.
Just read over the posts. I have posted plenty of studies and my opponents have listed very few, mostly outdated “studies” probably written by the industry for corporate benefit. Objectively in this sense means DO NOT let political views disregard the evidence. When no or spurious evidence is posted from their side the tendency is to make accusations A trick often employed by Republicans. When they have run out of a defense in an argument they parrot labels like, taxes, socialism and big government in the hopes to get a knee-jerk reaction. It is everywhere on these forums.
None of this is factual. All of this is subjective conjecture; there is no objective basis for a rational, fruitful discussion to take place. Your claims are unfounded and, again, highly subjective.
If objectivity is your aim, why do you resort to finger pointing? You dismiss all of the calls to explain the spurious evidence YOU post with nothing but fallacious deflection and you expect everyone else to take you seriously? GTFO. You do realize you’re talking to well reasoned adults of varying backgrounds and experiences, correct? Your condescension is one of the main reasons no one takes you seriously.
As opposed to your illogical posts and ad hominem responses in an attempt to deflect extrapolating your positions? Your main response “follow the data” but what you really mean is “follow the data that I think supports my position - all the data you post is tainted” is infantile and not fit for a proper discussion. Be like water, Zep. Be like water.
3 Likes
Ya, you’ll notice he just scrolled past all those countries I listed with interest rates over 50% because it blew his point to shreds.
Typical of ol Zeppy.
1 Like
linking to Medicare for all, a group that clearly cherrypicked data to tell the story they wanted to tell. They used data from the OCED. A group whose data you’ve used in the past.
How many studies can you cite that champions the “healthcare” system in the U.S. vs. how many other studies that demonstrate the superiority of single-payer in it’s different forms? How is it better? They cover everyone and don’t drive people into medical bankruptcy. It costs far less often with better results. Is that good for starters?
I’ve already crushingly dismantled every single one of your talking points before. Like making accusations? Wow you’re really someone to be reckoned with
Just about every world leader or leaders of movements rely on or are involved in the studies I post. Like the W.H.O. for example.
but what you really mean is “follow the data that I think supports my position - all the data you post is tainted” is infantile and not fit for a proper discussion. No I think you are confused. This is what the other side does.