The anger, when asked to explain, is yours. You did not do carefully and clearly the first time, and your being irked is masking what you are trying to say the second time. So . . . quit being defensive . . . and explain exactly without attitude what you mean. Then I can debate.
I have received military and VA care all of my life, and I have nothing bad to say. The fee-for-serve and fee-for-products are the problems.
Serious people can argue their respective cases without any need to resort to pejorative terms (such as "Trumpcarekill"). It sounds rather like something that Chuck Schumer (the precise opposite of a serious person, in my opinion) might conjure up. But please feel free to explain exactly how, in your opinion, I have "misrepresent[ed]" the matter...
Exactly what did I say that you did not understand? If you will be so kind as to answer that query, I will try to explain.
Because Roth IRAs are tax-free (as the first six percent of my 401k contributions were, also). To imply, therefore, that there is nothing at all wrong with government interference in the free market is to suggest--tacitly, at least--that the American government is the ultimate owner of all American money.
Well, in post #5 you said the central issue is "Since Democrats (and liberals in general) tend to judge the merits of a healthcare plan by the number of people covered, why would they not push for UHC, instead of ObamaCare? (The former would certainly cover more people than the latter.)" First, the Democrats have called for correcting the problems of Obamacare, one of which is that people are left out with no coverage, and another is the rapidly increasing premium cost. And secondly, they have argued that Trumpcare would not solve either of those problems because it mostly just throws us back to the way healthcare was before Obamacare was passed. And regarding UHC, the Dems say little about this because time spent on pushing it and debating it would be time wasted, since there is no way a Republican Congress would pass such a bill. And all this is complicated by the fact of the sluggish non-recovery of the economy for most people combined with a huge national debt that cannot be addressed in the context of such a sluggish economy. If the economy and jobs were robust and incomes were good and GDP was higher and those requiring public assistance were fewer, we could more easily take any shock that a shift to UHC may cause for the short term. But that's not where we are. So the situation is complex and stubborn.
You are now sealioning. Explain carefully and clearly, please: last chance. It is your obligation to say it clearly.
Your first part is 100% correct. Your second part is a grievous error: there is no such thing as a free market.
Governments have always had a role in " free markets" Claiming that suggests any government is the owner of all money is way too much of a stretch.
This appears to suggest that, whereas most Republicans oppose ObamaCare, they would be especially virulent in their opposition to UHC. Just where did you get that, anyway? I am a Republican--and a quite conservative one, at that. And I would vastly prefer UHC to ObamaCare, if these were the only two options available. And I think that most other Republicans (and conservatives) would, also. This is certainly not to say that I support UHC--I do not--but that my opposition to ObamaCare is even greater. Much greater. Why would you imagine that ObamaCare has a greater chance of being saved than UHC has of passing a Republican-controlled Congress?
As anyone with a shred of honesty should know, the main interest of the Republicans is in passing huge tax cuts for the rich. UHC would not address that and it would harm some of their biggest contributors: health insurance companies. But they're not and Republicans will not let it be the only two. They don't want the health insurance industry to be harmed at all. -IF they were the only two. But they're not and won't be. Only because Obamacare is already in place. So the challenge is much less.
For starters, I am not at all familiar with the term, "sealioning." And Dictionary.com does not list any such word. If you consider it my "last chance" to explain to you "clearly" exactly what I meant, then I would suggest to you that you simply go on to another thread. (In fact, if you even wish to ignore all my posts, I would not be at all opposed to that.)
"[T]he rich" pay most of the taxes now; so any evenhanded tax cut is going to yield far more of a benefit to those who pay most of the taxes than to those who pay only a small amount--or even none at all, in some cases. Good. Then this begs the question: Why didn't the Democratic Party go for UHC in 2010? (There has never been a time--never!--in which ObamaCare was more popular with Republicans in general than UHC.)
Not so much doesn't mean the government didn't have a big role. But you are right in a way, iwithout government capitalism is self destructive.
Why?... -because the Democratic Party is a pro-corporate party, but one that talks nicer-sounding talk than the Republican Party does.
pjohns cannot and will not explain clearly what he means. He does not understand Adam Smith, he refuses to admit this concept of free markets do not exist, so he simply wants to cavil on the issues. He has lost here.
Odd. It really didn't seem to be, for over a century-and-a-half prior to FDR. (I think what you are really cheerleading for is what is commonly known as a mixed economy...)
What, exactly, does being a "pro-corporate party" have to do with backing a healthcare plan that was bound to fail (and everyone long knew it), prior to cheerleading for UHC (as the Democrats will soon do, surely)?
You don't think capitalism was self-destructive prior to FDR??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!! Maybe you don't know about the intolerable working conditions and the attacks on workers by armed, paid, Pinkerton thugs! Maybe you don't know that FDR famously said "I saved capitalism"!
The Dems wouldn't want to actually push for UHC that ends health insurance companies and ends business profits, so they developed and backed Obamacare because it promised to cover more people but kept the profiteers in business. And they have found they can't do both, ensure private profits AND cover everyone at an affordable cost.
Well, FDR "saved" capitalism by transmuting America into a mixed economy. You might wish to read Adam Smith (as in, The Wealth of Nations)...
Perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by a mixed economy and then explain what FDR changed to make America into a mixed economy.
