Let's talk healthcare

[iNow]

Further food for thought...

 

 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0402_health_care_economics_aaron.aspx?rssid=LatestFromBrookings

 

It isn't often that the course of history turns on principles taught in freshman economics. But the fate of the health reform legislation is now in jeopardy in part because some Supreme Court justices have so far failed to grasp such principles. <continue reading>

[A Tripolation]

Further food for thought...

 

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0402_health_care_economics_aaron.aspx?rssid=LatestFromBrookings

 

While I'm all for making healthcare readily available, this is one part of the AHA that I agree with Scalia about. Why in the world would you levy a tax penalty against people like me that can't afford to take out any kind of healthcare?

[iNow]

While I'm all for making healthcare readily available, this is one part of the AHA that I agree with Scalia about. Why in the world would you levy a tax penalty against people like me that can't afford to take out any kind of healthcare?

There's a provision for these situations, so the argument rests on a moot point.

 

 

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/mandated_health_coverage.htm

 

Starting in 2014, Medicaid will expand to include Americans under age 65 (children, pregnant women, parents, and adults without dependent children) with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level (or roughly between $14,000 and $15,000 for an individual). Therefore, if your income is near this poverty level, you (and your family members) will automatically qualify for Medicaid.

 

If you're at the poverty level, you get Medicaid. If you're not at the poverty level, you can find coverage or pay the tax.

 

UPDATE: This source seems more clear. There is no penalty:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

 

* Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process.

 

* Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).

 

* Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4)

[A Tripolation]

If you're at the poverty level, you get Medicaid. If you're not at the poverty level, you can find coverage or pay the tax.

 

I suppose I am being a college kid and only having a part time job. But I am not eligible for Medicaid as I checked due to recent medical issues. Under this, I would be forced to have insurance I cannot afford.

[iNow]

So, there are subsidies to help, too.

 

(I added some to my post while you were responding)

 

Regardless... I am pretty sure that you and I both agree that a single payer universal system is ideal, especially given the arguments already put forth in this thread regarding cost and quality, but for whatever reason we cannot get that done in the current political climate.

[John Cuthber]

I suppose I am being a college kid and only having a part time job. But I am not eligible for Medicaid as I checked due to recent medical issues. Under this, I would be forced to have insurance I cannot afford.

One question is would you be able to afford as much?

If so the problem goes away because the US currently spends roughly twice what you would expect it to.

 

Anyway, odd as it may seem, the countries where nationalised healthcare systems are in place have addressed this sort of problem over the last 50 years or so.

[JustinW]

Bilko,

 

I agree with you in a small way, a micro way. Of course we all know these people who have done well, our peers, maybe you and me

Especially you and me. We shouldn't judge the world on what it should be, but rather what it is and what we're capable of. Now if I saw someone who was truely in need of help, my empathy and sympathy would drive me to help that person because I would not only feel bad for that person, but would also feel bad about myself if I didn't. My point in people taking responsibility for their own lives is just that. I can't expect the next person to feel the same way as I do about that kind of situation, and I darn sure can't mandate that they do. There is a difference in helping out your neighbor, who might be going through some hard times, and mandating that we give a handout to a whole nation in which a large part are likely to take advantage. I've personally seen it with the programs that we have already, and I strongly feel that we need to rein in the abuse of those programs before we even think about implementing a larger one.

 

But, you are guilty of skimming the data to make cheap shots, my point was a Macro point, and you know that. If you take 30 million people, look at the socio economic background, level of education a pattern will be evident. The rich will get a better start in life, a better education and be able to make better choices. Surely you can see this. On another thread you made a point that you didn't necessarily agree with every point that you made, you were just offering alternative points of view. I respect that I would much rather examine a subject from a variety of angles. But surely there comes a point when you start to learn, apreciate the data and interpret it, not just reaching for the cheap shots

So what you're basing your argument on is that it is unfair that there are rich people. It is unfair that someone can make good decisions in their lives so that the future generations of their family have it better than they do. And that the future generations should bear the burden because of it. It has already been shown in this thread that the rich pay just as much for healthcare as the average citizen. Why should they pay more for the same product? Just because they made the right choices in life?

 

 

So what do you suggest for the poor, the sick, the weak and the lame. Some half rate system, or go to hell? Please dont say those people are provided for adequately, you know that they are not, you know that quality of Healthcare is directly linked to your ability to pay.

I expect the government to crack down on the abuse that is going on in their current programs. If they do that properly, then it would allow room to encompass the truly needy, instead of those who manipulate the system because they somehow feel entitled to something free from their government.

 

 

John,

 

No, you need to understand that responsibility goes hand -in -hand with power.

I do. And each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future.

 

 

Sorry, I can't parse that, never mind reply, but I will say this.

It's fair to say that the countries with largely black populations are often poor. They have little money for healthcare and their populations suffer.

That has nothing much to do with the issues of comparing the US with most of the Western world.

That comparison is where the US gets conspicuously poor value for money.

What? I was talking about population of black decendants of NHS nations compared to the population of the US. What are you talking about?

 

 

Yes, that's all very well.

But the data clearly doesn't know it is meant to support your ideas. It shows that not only as an aggregate, but individually, the united states spend more money (as a % of GDP or in absolute terms) than practically everyone else.

Yes it does. Hence the blue line in the graph. That is exactly what I was talking about.

 

 

Straw man.

I never said that there were no differences.

I beg to differ.

Your replies in Post #2

How not?

They count dead babies. It's not rocket science.

I posted data on infant mortality and death rates.

I chose those data because they are pretty robust. Diagnostic criteria for "dead" are fairly consistent across the world.

 

 

What I said was that it's relatively simple to count dead babies. It is. That's why it's a relatively robust statistic.

So we can go ahead and ignore the fact that different countries use different criteria succh as weight, function, and age, when here in the US the smallest indication of life is reported? You don't think that even remotely throws the figures off? And even that coupled with my other arguements on the subject don't add up to this larger mortality number? I don't believe I'm the one ignoring things here.

 

 

Yes, but clearly only in relative terms. So, for example, compared to the US, Japan has quite a good death rate for infants.

It gets this without spending as much money as the US too.

This supports my take on the matter http://health.usnews...0924/2healy.htm

 

As you say, if you are comparing that to much of Europe where the population is very largely white then the best the US can do - the death rate among white babies- is worse than the typical figures for Europe- largely the death rate for white babies.

You're going to have to prove this assertion. When I make statements like this someone always demands me to show evidence. It's ah...what does iNow call it...oh yeah, drawing a conclusion from incredulity.

 

Oh, BTW I freely accept that I don't know what those "bad" figures are but since your own source says that are bad you can either agree with me or argue against yourself.

If the figures are not "bad" then the source of your information is incorrect and so you just shot down your own argument.

It says they are bad. It doesn't say that they are worse than the rest of the world.

 

Why are you so keen to defend a system that costs you much more money to get worse care?

I refer you to the top of this post where I mention to Sgt. Bilko about our current government programs. And secondly because I enjoy the freedom of choice which will have a chance to be taken if a government is allowed to dictate it.

 

 

 

Zapatos,

 

Yes, freedom.

 

And don't forget these:

 

bin laden is evil!

Support our troops!

School prayer!

Lamestream media!

Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

NATURALIZED CITIZEN!

ILLEGAL ALIENS!

My wife yes, my dog maybe, my gun NEVER!

Evolution is only a THEORY!

USA! USA! USA! (with a nod to iNow)

OOH, you got me there.

 

 

 

iNow,

 

I, too, struggle with this question enormously.

It's a result of you taking the information given to you for granted as being factual and listening to people that would have you believe that America is the real evil in the world.

 

If you're at the poverty level, you get Medicaid. If you're not at the poverty level, you can find coverage or pay the tax.

It seems that we already do this, just without the punishment fee.

 

 

 

A Trip,

 

I suppose I am being a college kid and only having a part time job. But I am not eligible for Medicaid as I checked due to recent medical issues. Under this, I would be forced to have insurance I cannot afford.

Have you even looked for something you could afford? And, is there a reason that you can't get a full time job so you can afford it? Edited April 4, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

When I make statements like this someone always demands me to show evidence. It's ah...what does iNow call it...oh yeah, drawing a conclusion from incredulity.

That's actually not at all what John did there, but okay.

 

It's a result of you taking the information given to you for granted as being factual and listening to people that would have you believe that America is the real evil in the world.

This is patently false. It's about me using sources that are known to be objective and factual instead of ideological and inaccurate. And, I do NOT take the information for granted. I look closely at this, and you are quite simply wrong. That has nothing whatsoever to do with me only looking to sources "that would have you believe that America is the real evil in the world." Talk about a frakkin' nonsequitur, Justin. Good grief.

[John Cuthber]

"I do. And each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future."

Bollocks- there are plenty of people who can't get work. Once again, you are refusing to let the facts disturb your beliefs.

 

FFS learn to read.

what I said was "Diagnostic criteria for "dead" are fairly consistent across the world."

and "I chose those data because they are pretty robust."

so, as I said I never said that there were no differences. Pretty robust is not the same as perfect. Fairly consistent is not the same as absolutely consistent. I was pointing out that they were pretty good criteria- certainly birth and death are universal and well documented

 

 

"What? I was talking about population of black decendants of NHS nations compared to the population of the US. What are you talking about?"

I told you what I was on about. In the meantime your question ""Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black?" still makes no sense.

 

"Yes it does. Hence the blue line in the graph. That is exactly what I was talking about."

It doesn't matter what colour lines you draw, or where on the graph you put them. The data still show that most US states pay more for their healthcare (as proportion of GDP) than the rest of the world. Your healthcare is expensive.

 

"It says they are bad. It doesn't say that they are worse than the rest of the world."

No, I grant you that they could be comparing it to the death rates on Mars, but that seems unlikely. Where do you think they are comparing it to?

 

"You're going to have to prove this assertion. When I make statements like this someone always demands me to show evidence. It's ah...what does iNow call it...oh yeah, drawing a conclusion from incredulity."

For a start, that's not the right logical fallacy for what you think I have done.

For an encore, since it's your data (at least you cited it) I really don't have to prove it in this case. (Unless, of course, you want to retract the evidence on which you are basing your claim- which would be an odd way to explain something).

 

And, BTW, iNow, are you sure he's not trolling?

Edited April 4, 2012 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

"What? I was talking about population of black decendants of NHS nations compared to the population of the US. What are you talking about?"

I told you what I was on about. In the meantime your question ""Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black?" still makes no sense.

He's trying to suggest that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than those countless other nations because a larger portion of the US population is black than in those other countries. It's his way of dismissing the fact that our infant mortality rate is higher despite the extra moneys we pay... because we have more black people who seem to experience a higher rate of infant deaths... as if their being black is the primary driver in that mortality rate.

 

And, BTW, iNow, are you sure he's not trolling?

I am... He genuinely believes these things and is not intentionally trying to get a rouse out of us. I see it every single day on issues like this, climate change, evolution, etc. While it's annoying, I do not think he is intentionally annoying us. He really truly thinks his argument is valid and is not letting the facts shake his belief.

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

This is patently false. It's about me using sources that are known to be objective and factual instead of ideological and inaccurate. And, I do NOT take the information for granted. I look closely at this, and you are quite simply wrong.

This is why you can't even admit that the arguments I present are valid? OK.

 

That has nothing whatsoever to do with me only looking to sources "that would have you believe that America is the real evil in the world."

I wasn't referring to the sites in which you obtain your information. I was referring to those that champion the trash talking of this country, like the sarcastic cheerleading that you have entertained and now Zapatos has chosen to duplicate. But free speach is free speach I guess, and you're entitled to your own.

 

 

 

John,

 

Bollocks- there are plenty of people who can't get work. Once again, you are refusing to let the facts disturb your beliefs.

And there are plenty of people who refuse to get work. As are you sir, refusing to let facts disturb your beliefs. Attack the facts, not my beliefs. Can you produce anything that says an unemployed person earns too much to be admitted to Medicaid?

 

 

I was pointing out that they were pretty good criteria- certainly birth and death are universal and well documented

 

Oh the fact that the US even reports still births in the ratings no matter what the weight. And here from the last link

As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

Does this seem like they are fairly consistant across the world. Even the OECD warns against comparing countries by these ratings, so why do you insist that we must and that that is as accurate as can be?

 

 

I told you what I was on about. In the meantime your question ""Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black?" still makes no sense.

That was directed at iNow. He insisted that the majority of the population in Cuba and French Polynesia were black. I proved otherwise and was hoping he would admitt when he was wrong.

 

 

It doesn't matter what colour lines you draw, or where on the graph you put them. The data still show that most US states pay more for their healthcare (as proportion of GDP) than the rest of the world.

I'm not arguing that fact. I was stating the reason that we do, and that our current rate of pay is closer to normal in a free market compared with our economic output. That is what the line was showing.

 

 

No, I grant you that they could be comparing it to the death rates on Mars, but that seems unlikely. Where do you think they are comparing it to?

If they were comparing it to something don't you think they would have said what. By your willingness to assume, why couldn't they be comparing the rates of Colorado with the rest of the states since they were talking about Colorado? Why do you think that it wasn't that they were just saying that the rates are worse than they would like to see and that it was a retorhical "bad"? I'm just saying you're assuming something that isn't likely.

 

 

For a start, that's not the right logical fallacy for what you think I have done.

For an encore, since it's your data (at least you cited it) I really don't have to prove it in this case. (Unless, of course, you want to retract the evidence on which you are basing your claim- which would be an odd way to explain something).

My evidence? I've never produced any evidence that says "the US's white infant death rate is higher than NHS nation's white infant death rate." That was an assumption on your part and I asked you to provide the numbers for it. And if you want to assert that I have provided information stating that fact, I would also ask you to tell me where?

 

And, BTW, iNow, are you sure he's not trolling?

No I'm not trolling, though I doubt you would believe me anyway. You cannot attack the validity of my argument so you wish to misdirect the conversation. Or at least that is what I'm getting from your repetitive trolling remarks.

[iNow]

I wasn't referring to the sites in which you obtain your information.

So, completely and wholly irrelevant to absolutely anything I've said then. Got it.

 

I was referring to those that champion the trash talking of this country, like the sarcastic cheerleading that you have entertained and now Zapatos has chosen to duplicate.

Pointing out facts and questioning your ideological conclusions is not equivalent to "trash talking of this country." Just because I think your argument is faulty, and just because I think your case is extremely weak, and just because I look at the facts that show we're really pathetic relative to the rest of the world in this context does not mean I am trash talking this country... and frankly I don't appreciate the implicit questioning of my patriotism merely for disagreeing with your completely specious conclusions.

 

That was directed at iNow. He insisted that the majority of the population in Cuba and French Polynesia were black. I proved otherwise and was hoping he would admitt when he was wrong.

There were merely examples. Sure... I stipulate that I misframed those examples. It still doesn't support your contention that our infant mortality rate is higher than large swaths of other countries in the civilized world is due to there being a higher percentage of black people in the US than in countries like the UK. I have countered that assertion in at least two other ways, so focusing on the example of Cuba misses the mark a bit.

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

Pointing out facts and questioning your ideological conclusions is not equivalent to "trash talking of this country." Just because I think your argument is faulty, and just because I think your case is extremely weak, and just because I look at the facts that show we're really pathetic relative to the rest of the world in this context does not mean I am trash talking this country... and frankly I don't appreciate the implicit questioning of my patriotism merely for disagreeing with your completely specious conclusions.

 

 

And I don't appreciate the sarcastic "USA, USA, USA" comments either. And no it's not because you disagree with me, it's because of comments like I've bolded. And there are two reasons that I find faulty with your justification. First, you have had this type of negative attitude, championing different parts of the world, on numerous subjects, not just in this context. And second, when your "facts" can be shown not to apply to the context of an argument you still assert that they are usefull.

 

 

There were merely examples. Sure... I stipulate that I misframed those examples. It still doesn't support your contention that our infant mortality rate is higher than large swaths of other countries in the civilized world is due to there being a higher percentage of black people in the US than in countries like the UK. I have countered that assertion in at least two other ways, so focusing on the example of Cuba misses the mark a bit.

I wasn't focusing too much on the examples, John asked I answered, but that's beside the point. With the sheer numbers, and I haven't even included Hispanics in this, along with the difference in reporting criteria, how could it not come close to making up the difference between countries? I still haven't been fully let in on your reasoning for this. Edited April 4, 2012 by JustinW

[zapatos]

I wasn't referring to the sites in which you obtain your information. I was referring to those that champion the trash talking of this country, like the sarcastic cheerleading that you have entertained and now Zapatos has chosen to duplicate. But free speach is free speach I guess, and you're entitled to your own.

Actually I thought up the sarcastic cheerleading on my own and did not duplicate iNow. It wasn't until I got to the line of USA! USA! that I realized I had already seen it in this thread and decided I should acknowledge iNow for thinking of it before I did.

 

But I was not trash talking this country, I was trash talking you by mocking your pathetic cheerleading of this country.

 

I made a point of how preventive medicine costing $0.03 per day could save the healthcare system in the US hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country, you chose instead to shrug your shoulders and cry Freedom. As if the price of freedom is $0.03 per day. As if we would not have freedom in this country if we modified our healthcare system. As if shifting how money is already collected and distributed is somehow an attack on freedom. As if freedom has anything at all to do with what I said.

 

I thank God our founding fathers consisted of the men we had rather than the sniveling apologetics today who don't have the balls to question their own country. They think they are supporting this country but are in reality doing it a great disservice.

 

I can still hear the crowds chanting USA! USA! when Bush 'explained' the Iraq war by saying that Iraqis 'hated Freedom and freedom loving Americans'. Pathetic. Both Bush for saying it and the crowds for accepting it and not requiring anything further.

 

I only feel bad that I didn't think of the sarcastic cheerleading before iNow did.

[JustinW]

Zapatos,

 

Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country, you chose instead to shrug your shoulders and cry Freedom.

So this is what you've resorted to? Calling me less than a man? Oh, if only...If I didn't like critical discussion so much I might have some choice words.

 

 

As if we would not have freedom in this country if we modified our healthcare system.

By mandating that you buy something is an attack on your freedom. Some may argue that they mandate that you buy auto insurance, but they don't. Only if you choose to drive. Mandating that you buy something because you choose to live is an attack on freedom.

[iNow]

By mandating that you buy something is an attack on your freedom.

What if we just extended Medicare to everyone, instead of just the elderly? How would you feel about that? I'm not a terrible fan of trying to make this work with private insurers, myself.

[A Tripolation]

A Trip,

 

Have you even looked for something you could afford? And, is there a reason that you can't get a full time job so you can afford it?

 

It's hard to find more hours when you already carry 19 credit hours of upper level physics/mathematics courses, 20 hours at a local drug store, 5 hours doing undergrad research, and then other free hours doing tutoring and essay services.

 

Yes, I have looked at private policies. They are abysmal. I think the cheapest in my area was $549 a month for a healthy 22-year old male that doesn't drink or smoke.

 

I'm really looking forward as to how you're going to analyze my situation to align with your skewed ideologies of private > government.

Edited April 5, 2012 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

It's hard to find more hours when you already carry 19 credit hours of upper level physics/mathematics courses, 20 hours at a local drug store, 5 hours doing undergrad research, and then other free hours doing tutoring and essay services.

 

Yes, I have looked at private policies. They are abysmal. I think the cheapest in my area was $549 a month for a healthy 22-year old male that doesn't drink or smoke.

Just like all those other lazy welfare queens. Stop trying to mooch off the state and try working for your own damned health coverage, you liberal entitlement happy hippy! You are obviously watching too much of the elitist lame stream media and have no idea what freedom really means. All you want to do is trash talk your country, and frankly it disgusts me.

[A Tripolation]

Just like all those other lazy welfare queens. Stop trying to mooch off the state and try working for your own damned health coverage, you liberal entitlement happy hippy! You are obviously watching too much of the elitist lame stream media and have no idea what freedom really means. All you want to do is trash talk your country, and frankly it disgusts me.

 

You're right. I was under the delusion that if we can build a massive transit system that encompasses the nation--paid for by public funds and used for the well-being of the public--that we could do the same for healthcare.

 

I'm watching far too much MSNBC and not enough FOX.

[iNow]

Don't forget the police force, fire department, local schools, library system, public universities, military, VA hospital, medicare, jails, beaches, social security, street lamps, sewer systems, national parks, and others. Highways, though? 5-star general Dwight David Eisenhower was little more than a socialist fascist communist marxist hippy who hated america and despised freedom... Like Barack HUSSEIN!!1!2!!one!! Obama!

Edited April 5, 2012 by iNow

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

What if we just extended Medicare to everyone, instead of just the elderly? How would you feel about that? I'm not a terrible fan of trying to make this work with private insurers, myself.

I don't know... I think I would be more in favor of setting up a task force to purge medicaid of the fraudulant people who abuse it, see how much that opens that program up for growth, and spread it's coverage accordingly.

 

A Trip,

 

It's hard to find more hours when you already carry 19 credit hours of upper level physics/mathematics courses, 20 hours at a local drug store, 5 hours doing undergrad research, and then other free hours doing tutoring and essay services.

Well it does seem like your day is pretty full. By the way you said that you were acting like a college kid seemed to imply that you were only acting, not doing, and I wondered if it was only by choice.

 

 

Yes, I have looked at private policies. They are abysmal. I think the cheapest in my area was $549 a month for a healthy 22-year old male that doesn't drink or smoke.

Hmmm, that's funny, I found one for my wife for $134 a month last quarter.

 

 

I'm really looking forward as to how you're going to analyze my situation to align with your skewed ideologies of private > government.

What's so skewed about it. Can you cite anywhere that I have presented an argument that wasn't valid?

 

Reply for posts 143-145

Hahaha...It's amazing how well you fellas can pat eachother on the back and poke fun at someone for disagreeing, but can't tell me EXACTLY where I'm wrong. All you can do is cheerlead for your cause or do like Zapatos and call me "less than a man". Which is alright, because someone like Zapatos, who talks fightin' words while hiding behind a computer screen really isn't much of a man in my opinion either.

That being said I would still like to hear where my logic doesn't apply and how. (and don't forget the how, that's the part I been wanting, but have yet to recieve with any detail)

[John Cuthber]

Zapatos,

 

So this is what you've resorted to? Calling me less than a man? Oh, if only...If I didn't like critical discussion so much I might have some choice words.

 

 

 

By mandating that you buy something is an attack on your freedom. Some may argue that they mandate that you buy auto insurance, but they don't. Only if you choose to drive. Mandating that you buy something because you choose to live is an attack on freedom.

Justin,

All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

If you want to see what life is like in an anarchy, have a look at Somalia for example. (though that might be a bit unfair to Somalia- even thy have some local law)

Would you prefer to live there where you can have your "freedom"?

 

 

Now, lets' have another look at what I said and your reply to it.

I quoted you saying "I do. And each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future."

and I pointed out that the statement simply isn't true. Specifically, I said

"Bollocks- there are plenty of people who can't get work. Once again, you are refusing to let the facts disturb your beliefs."

 

And your reply was

"And there are plenty of people who refuse to get work. As are you sir, refusing to let facts disturb your beliefs. Attack the facts, not my beliefs."

Now the trouble with that reply is that it's not really relevant.

While there is even one person who cannot find a job then it shows that your statement is false.

The number who refuse to look for jobs is entirely irrelevant.

So, do you see what you have done there- you have attacked a strawman version of my assertion.

You pretended that I wrote that there were no free loaders and attacked that assertion.

But it's not what I said.

 

Now, will you kindly address the issue of how it can be true that "each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future." when some people can't find work?

The existence of people who cannot find work is a fact.

You ignored it.

[iNow]

What's so skewed about it. Can you cite anywhere that I have presented an argument that wasn't valid?

Seriously?

[A Tripolation]

Well it does seem like your day is pretty full. By the way you said that you were acting like a college kid seemed to imply that you were only acting, not doing, and I wondered if it was only by choice.

 

I'm not even sure what this sentence is supposed to mean.

 

 

Hmmm, that's funny, I found one for my wife for $134 a month last quarter.

 

Ah, sweet. Find one that cheap for me that doesn't have a deductible of $5,000. Find one that I can actually use to go get this pancreatic ultrasound the doctors on campus told me I needed.

 

 

What's so skewed about it. Can you cite anywhere that I have presented an argument that wasn't valid?

 

You're defending a system that allows people like me (and many others that are far worse off) to go without medical care because we can't afford the exorbitant costs.

[iNow]

...Not to mention the countless flaws, factual errors, and logical fallacies pointed out throughout these previous 8 pages of discussion...