1 Like
Two concepts you cannot grasp.
1.) A government for the people and not the corporations is entirely different.
2.) All profit is NOT good.
Enough said.
Wow he has a lot of evidence to fight against his âfree marketâ fantasy.
http://www.who.int/gho/health_financing/per_capita_expenditure/en/
Plenty of other studies, but too many to list. The evidence is overwhelming but fools will try and hang on to their ideology as much as possible. It is more important for the theories in books to be right rather than following the evidence.
Youâre an imbecile.
So when backed into a corner and exposed your go to criticism is name-calling. Bravo!
I could be wrong (doubtful) but I think he was mimicing you and your approach to debating. But hey, ignore the obvious, itâs what youâre good at.
1 Like
This didnât get taken. The troll wins another thread.
Everyone together now: Donât feed, donât feed, donât feed!
2 Likes
So when he avoids statements and questions he is mincing me in a debate? Bwahahaha!
Nah, probably just making fun of you - heâs tried mincing you into debates for years now to no avail - as Iâm sure youâre well aware.
âBacked into a cornerâŠâ That has got to be the funniest line youâve ever written on here. Bravo, truly classic, Zep. It certainly rivals plain corporation thatâs for sure.
You are a clown. I donât mean that figuratively. You are quite literally a clown. There are a thousand reasons why youâre a clown, but lets just look at your very last comment.
First, Iâm well aware that a government by and for the people and for the corporations are two entirely different things. Itâs just a plain dumb thing to type out. However, I do understand that very basic concepts are difficult for you so itâs logical that youâd make the leap to assume others struggle with simple things. Rest assured, you are the only sub-50 IQ on these forums that canât grasp easy concepts.
Secondly, I have not, even one time, argued that all profit is good. Again, I get it, though. You are too simple minded to appreciate the nuances of a personâs argument. Oh, sorry, nuance is a big word. Iâll try to dumb it down for you. Let me start again, Iâm not stupid, like you, so I can argue complex topics. Arguing, for one thing, does not automatically mean you believe in the opposite. That is a common problem that arises during discussions so itâs not just you. Youâre just one of the worst offenders Iâve ever encountered.
Third, anytime you end a statement with something declarative like âenough saidâ it makes you look like even more of a clown. Bravo.
Let me break this down as Barney style as I can for you. Our central government was initially created âby and for the people*â. Since that time, more and more power has left the people and the states and centralized with the federal government. Allowing the government to take over what has become an essential part of life (healthcare since Iâm sure youâre lost at this point) will give them even more power over Americans. This leads further away from the concept of government by and for the people.
Take a few days, maybe a few years, and actually think that over. Get back to me when you can square the notion that you want to give the central government more power over our lives and at the same time have a government thatâs by and for the people. The same government that allows Big Pharm monopolies, as you put it, to exist even though they could invoke anti-trust laws and breaks them up, the same government that you lambast for spending trillions in the Middle East, and so on and so forth.
*Some people anyway
100% accurate.
Is all loss bad? If you owned a business Zep, when is profit bad and loss good?
1 Like
This was inaccurate to the point of dishonesty. Private insurance is a third party purchase by the very definition he uses - and we know this because insurance companies derive their price from pool cost-sharing, not first party direct transactions, and pick and choose quality for its insureds (limitations on network, refusal to pick up the tab on certain treatments) based on its interests, not the end userâs.
And, in some cases, health providers actually refuse to allow first party transactions with individuals if they have private insurance - and government has nothing to do with it. Meaning, if you have health insurance, you canât waive that coverage and simply pay it out of pocket for a service at a cheaper rate. Why? Health care providers want to be compensated at (higher) rates agreed to in advance with insurance companies. You, the consumer, are powerless to change that. Thatâs the very essence of a third party purchase monkeying with the ârightnessâ of the transaction - a third party payer is going to pay the higher amount (even though there is a cheaper option at the same quality) and youâre going to eat it when premiums go up.
Socialism wonât solve our health care conundrum. But nor will libertarianism. They are two sides of the same impractical, ideological coin.
Examples of him mincing me in a debate?
Yeah, following the evidence is very difficult, especially when it doesnât jive with your ideology.
Well you certainly donât acknowledge it in your posts.
So the profits of Big Pharma are not always good? And the fact that they bribe politicians is overlooked on your part.
Let me break this down as Barney style as I can for you. Our central government was initially created âby and for the people*â. Since that time, more and more power has left the people and the states and centralized with the federal government. Allowing the government to take over what has become an essential part of life (healthcare since Iâm sure youâre lost at this point) will give them even more power over Americans. This leads further away from the concept of government by and for the people.
So the corporations that lobby(bribe politicians) are not to blame and bare no responsibility?
What about politicians who donât take corporate cash? When the government tries to invoke anti-trust laws, they are always criticized by the like of people such as you. They are being anti-free market and the like.
A very weak argument you make. But itâs par for the course.
Is all loss bad? If you owned a business Zep, when is profit bad and loss good?
When profit is used to build a monopoly, bribe politicians and limit choice. Then it is bad.
Maybe you should write these economists and let the know of their dishonesty.
When Medicare-For-All is here, I hope they leave a provision for people like you who would rather pay more for worse outcomes. It wonât take too long for you to switch. And I will be smiling.
Jesus HâŠ
Whatever dude, Iâve finally put you on ignore. I canât take your heaping piles of shit anymore.
Yes. Youâre a perfect example of such behavior
1 Like
It wasnât an economist in the video - it was a former GOP Congressman repeating copy-and-paste on how the government can never make anything better in the marketplace. It honestly is so canned and manufactured, it sounds like a glitch in the Matrix when they robotically repeat their talking points.
Iâd bet the vets who lost their lives wasting away under the VA health-care model would disagree with you they they were getting âbest outcomesâ.