Single payer is a death sentence for seniors

Of course not.

 

Notice there's no argument in any of that?

As for your questions, I don't really bother with those with lefties. Work with premises that lead to a conclusion.

I know an actual argument is an impossibility, and you won't be able to come up with one.

You're just a lefty being a lefty.

you don't want medicare
what are you going to replace medicare with?
you suk

just a lefty

 

No that is why many doctors refuse Medicare patients. Medicare spends more money on red tape than paying claims. As with any government program you need a hand full of bureaucrats to oversee every aspect.

 

But but but....you said competition lead to cheaper prices? Which is it?

 

That is totally false by the way. Show your work

 

I ask you for a solution. If you end medicare, what do you propose your parents and/or grandparents will have for insurance?
You want to end it. The option right now if ended is they get no insurance.

I know you need to keep dodging because your proposal is ridiculous and you don't have an answer.

I don't need an argument. I didn't propose ending medicare.

And you need to go with personal attacks. Admitting you have nothing. You just want to end a program that is for your parents and/or grandparents and never gave a thought about what that means for them.
So you throw out ad homs and stomp your feet and flail your arms, because you failed your parents and grandparents. Any bonehead figure that out.

 

"Supplements are going down." Not to levels that match any other western country.

BS, with single payer the government is not a monopoly. Doctors still operate as private entities. Supplements ie the pharmaceutical industry is a CURRENTLY a virtual monopoly. It's almost like you are intentionally trying to mislead everyone and failing to understand when many posters here have very clearly laid it out. Who would've thunk? I don't care what Obama did, as it has nothing to do with a single payer system and mentioning it 1000 times is pointless. It was to fund a mandated insurance program, NOT single payer.

 

Even worse it's possible they do and just want to mislead everyone to promote their own agenda. Politics is disgusting isn't it?

 

I've made my argument. You can't see it because you're institutionalized. All you know is that the government can cure all things, so what's my idea for the government to replace government with.

You can't see the hill for the trees because you're institutionalized. My argument that maybe the government is not the best cure is only met with "so what should the government do?".

 

Yes, you did.
And I stated your argument. You don't want your parents and/or grandparents to have insurance. Although that isn't an argument.
And i still have not brought up gov't in any of my posts. So the lying doesn't add to your lack of argument either.

I didn't ask what the gov't should do, I asked what you would like to replace what you've taken away from your parents and/or grandparents.
So far, it is they don't need insurance.

 

Wrong we'd be replacing 3 different systems with 1 (single payer). Right there with that simple statement you can easily see one of the major problems with the current system. I don't think many people would agree to get rid of all of them without replacing it with something. Maybe a compromise?

 

I just assume he wants to go back to the booming 20's and pay a dollar every-time his parents need to see a doctor. The 20's, when everything was just dandy.

 

Replacing 3 different government systems with 1 government system is your idea?

No, that is not an argument. Hey, why not replace federal, state, and municipal cops by turning them all into federal cops? That'll do it!!!!

You're institutionalized. You can't see anything beyond the government being able to do anything and everything. You probably can't even imagine the prospect of some guys with a few bulldozers and a cooler full of beer getting together to build a road without the government getting involved.

You're an institution boy.

 

Cops are still cops. If I call the cops, it's possible the feds might magically appear given the right crime. Of course you can decentralize one overarching system (it already works for medicaid) or are you just purposefully playing dumb to prove a point beyond this topic?

 

Where in this have you addressed the lack of a necessity for the government? Nowhere.

Wake up institution boy.

 

Where have you addressed the method of guaranteeing health coverage for every citizen when there is no overarching organization? Answer, nowhere.

 

Family, loved ones, friends, neighbors...

You can't see anything without government doing it, which is why you never once thought of any of those.

You're institutionalized.

 

Also that analogy is terrible as the 3 systems I speak of are all overarching systems, not different levels...

You personally can guarantee that there will be enough concerned people with enough money given any ones situation? That's new. I've gone through the checklist, checked it twice than 3.

 

He's not addressed anything.
All he's said is he wants to end medicare. And then calls other names when asking what would replace it.

He also thinks a few guys, a bulldozer, and a case of beer and they'll build an interstate system. Well, a road. That no one can use.

 

He already said there could be no compromise so I'm pretty sure his plan won't pass, whatever it is.

 

As you correctly called, back to the 20's where you pay out of pocket at the time. Like everyone has 100K sitting around to pay for a heart attack. Or several hundred K for cancer treatments.

 

Maybe, I don't want to assume anything.

 

I would be just fine without the government currently thank you very much, as I personally hate going to the doctor anyway. But we aren't talking about me. I've ignored it because tbh we are all institutionalized, including you, meaning I really couldn't care less. It's not really an insult. It's life.

I'd rather not live in the wilderness of Alaska but I respect anyone who wants too. If that's your thing go for it.

If survival of the fittest is your argument, I'm sure many others would very much disagree, but I think that answers everyone's questions about your stance here so thank you.

 

It's not survival of the fittest. It's about building up a set of people who care enough about you to make sure you don't end up in a sewer, if that's what might possibly happen. Okay, so it's not you. Great!

But why should I or you care about somebody who hasn't done that? They have no family who care, not enough money to pay for the help they need, no nothing!

Survival of the fittest means that it's only about physical prowess. I'm talking about ways to get what you need without being the strongest gorilla in the jungle. When my grandmother was ailing, she had medicare, but she also had two daughters, two brother in laws, about six grandchildren, and maybe 10 great grandchildren, along with all of the people she befriended along the way.

Nobody was going to just let her die in a sewer!

So there's your answer. Be a good person, lead a respectable life, and you won't be allowed to die in a swer. If you can't do that, then... well.... you die.

I have absolutely NO problems with that.

If you think I should care, then explan why I should.

 

Uh oh, my BS meter is going off the chart!


Either that or you have confused single payer with HMOs.