U.S. Budget Deficit Widens 11.8% in First Quarter of Fiscal Year

I support trump’s budget given the alternative is no budget.
That does not mean I support him or will vote for him however.

He should have pushed his “after I am reelected” budget three years ago.

 

by academics who want socialism so they're biased therefore I don't believe them.

not by any object of standard you have presented so, a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I do not click on links to research your argument if you are too lazy or inept to make it here then it isn't made. Link should be made only to support what you have stated. Why are all of you people so terrible at debate?

bull ****.

that makes no economic sense and the fact that you would say it means that you have no economic sense.

You can't get more for with better quality for less. Sorry that violates reality.

if you lack health Care coverage in the United States it is because you don't earn enough money to pay for it just lack a house or a Ferrari. if you want to live in that society go live there. I'm sure Germany is a bastion of human Rights. That's why everyone's flocking there and trying to get into that country illegally.

no I'm simply using my BS detector. More with better quality does not cost less you may believe that propaganda but I don't it doesn't make sense.

I did you presented a claim with no evidence and I dismissed it with no evidence that's how it works.

oh you misunderstand I have no interest in refuting your claims you can believe in whatever cockamamie BS you want. I just call that religion.

I'm not interested and dominating you I'm perfectly happy with the size of my penis.

I'm mostly interested in whether or not you have anything convincing to say which clearly. It is your job to change minds not mine.

Just because you want to dominate everyone doesn't mean that's other people's goals. I will never understand why you people think that everyone is just as Petty and blind as you. It's a bit narcissistic.

 

Finally you address the issue head on .. heavens be praised !


There are only 2 issues here 1) quality of healthcare provided 2) Cost.

2) we have already dealt with - the cost is half.

1) Quality

Perhaps you you have not traveled much outside the country - and/ or interacted much with people from some of these other nations. I have done both - on a regular basis for decades (not as much these days).

These other healthcare are very good - some better than others but generally top notch. Some incorporate private into the equation as well which is interesting.

So I don't need a study to know that folks are not dying in the streets of Switzerland because of lack of healthcare. They are not forced to pay 700 Dollars for a 70 dollar epiPen either.

If we sent out a survey tomorrow - We can switch to the Finland style healthcare system tomorrow - and everyone pays half - or keep what we have .. what do you figure the results would be.

Same commodity (or darn close) - half the price.

If you feel dominated - because I pointed out that you were not addressing the issue squarely -

1) Cost 2) Quality - Just presenting the facts - I can not change the perspective of a Bull - sans perhaps an electric shock to those sizable balls. .

You are really getting off on the domination kick - followed by Projection "Petty - Blind"

all because I told you - In the Yoda Voice - "down the rabbit hole you are"

Thought avoidance is not your friend.

 

I would seriously look at a fiscal conservative Republican if they had a chance but none will. There is NO ONE in the Democrat field I could vote for none of them are talking cutting spending quite the HUGE opposite.

 

and that argues this one. You can't get more of something for a higher quality for a lower cost. That violates every principle of economics.

I'm not interested in people's opinions because they are not objective. a person who gets a free bologna sandwich will probably tell you that's a great sandwich because he didn't have to pay for. Person that gets a high quality steak Pete's high-quality prices might complain that the steak was a little overconfident.

I don't care about that I want to compare the bologna sandwich to the steak.

You haven't done this because I think you know it will undermine your position.

people aren't dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare here either. They might be dying in the streets because they don't want to wait for what they can afford. Or they don't want to go to the hospital.

to say that this is because of lack of healthcare is dishonest.

you would get a bunch of opinion which is not objective. I'm not interested in the opinion of the person who gets the free bologna sandwich I know steak is better.

very likely not the same commodity. higher quality commodities are superior to lower quality ones and it costs more for higher-quality.

That is an economic reality no amount of reasoning can get you around.

I never said anything about feeling dominated. I said I had no interest in dominating you. I do not care if you think you're wrong. I do not care if you change your mind. You can believe in whatever stupid nonsense you want you probably will anyway it's called the dunning-kruger effect. I've experienced this talking with all the different conspiracy theorists you people are dead set on believing whatever you've chosen to believe. I would be a fool to try to prove any religious person wrong.

you didn't present any facts you presented other people's opinions. And how much you pay for something is going to affect your opinion.

For instance I was given a pair of vice grips, I was very thankful to the person who gave them to me and I used them until they failed. For the price I paid they were fantastic. I then paid $30 for a pair of better ones. because if you want something better you typically have to pay more for it that's how economy works. I have some complaints because I paid $30 for them.

So you can reference all the opinion you what it doesn't matter get to waste of time save yourself the trouble I'm going to present this same argument every time you present it.

Show number of deaths related to illnesses, number of illnesses treated number of new illnesses treated with those are objective but you refuse to because that will render socialist medicine lower in quality.

This nonsense doesn't work on me you are not smarter than me you were just some other clown on the internet desperate to prove yourself right not to me but to you. You are emotionally detached I am not.

 

I am in the same boat. Unfortunately they are all liars and neither party holds their candidates responsible for anything.

 

The cost issue is not an opinion its just the numbers. The quality issue has been studied by both left and right - in fact I gave you a link from "American Conservative" - The Koch Bro's also did a study - you turned around and cried "raging liberal socialists" OK .. well the socialists have done studies as well .. finding that the quality of healthcare in Norway is darn good.

Then you only need talk go folks from these countries - which clearly you have not done.

It is not some secret that folks are not dying in the streets from lack of healthcare in Norway. You are in the land of denial - not quite the level of denying that water is wet .. but not far off. .

Then you pretend to know something about economics. How about basic math .. What part of - you get the same quality epiPen for 1/10th the cost does not violate your "can't get something of higher - or equivalent in this case - quality for less cost" claim ?

 

yes true lesser things cost less typically. The opinion comes in as to whether or not it's better or higher quality.

no I'm not reading studies I don't care I'm doubting your claim. I asked you for objective metrics, you refuse or are incapable of providing.

So your claim founders. you don't need the studies for objective metrics all you need is numbers numbers.

I still don't care about their opinions it doesn't matter. Objective metrics are what matters.

again someone you can tell me all about how great their bologna sandwiches that they didn't have to pay for. It's still a bologna sandwich.

I didn't deny that so you are lying. I said there is not people in the United States dying in the streets for lack of health Care.

You haven't shown objective metrics of better quality all you're showing his people who get free s*** think the free s*** is great because they didn't have to pay for it.

That's not objective that's why I don't care about their opinions.

Remember the bologna sandwich analogy.

 

Your response is bizarre. You asking for objective metrics for quality of health care - Is a mindless request - given this discussion has been about how to quantify this metric.

Hence why 1 was stated as a given ... and 2 was not. Right at the outset.

Then .. I did provide metrics - you engaged in ad hom fallacy by demonizing the source rather than addressing the numbers. .. first claiming "Socialism" then when I gave you a link from "the American conservative" - you did the same demonize the source ad hom fallacy..

No rhyme .. no reason .. just twirling around crying "NO NO NO" and then accusing me of trying to dominate you .. but you are begging for it with your childish antics on the playground - which am doing my best ignore - be somewhat civil. Remember Yoda.

What is my claim - and on the basis of what does it flounder ?

You are in complete denial - not quite denial of water being wet - but close.

The claim - is that US healthcare is comparable to that of Norway - Switzerland - Germany - in terms of quality of care.

Any person that is worldly - knows that these other systems are fine - you are not going to die on the street for lack of healthcare.

So what is your point in saying folks in the US are not dying in the streets - making an equivalency as if this is not making my claim - and in fact adopting my claim.

We are getting a bit beyond denial here. As stated way many posts ago "Thought Avoidance" ..
You are way to invested in the propaganda narrative.. almost religiously - for some strange reason.

Your position is a losing one. 3.5 Trillion - in 2017. Cutting that in half would be worth a reduction in quality of care don't you agree ?
Within Reason. Of course those who could afford it would still have the private option - as is done in some of these other systems.

but guess what Watson ! - you can get just as good care - for half the money - and have universal healthcare.

Your healthcare bill just went down 50% - and your care is as good as it was when you were paying 100% - if you want to spend some of that savings on more healthcare - you have that option- boost that quality of care to even higher than previous.

3.5 Trillion ... say that to yourself a few times .. The entire federal Revenue for 2017 was 3.64 Trillion. To put things in perspective.

Somebody is fkn you - and all of us.

 

Well if one ranks an F and the other a C- you go with the C-

 

Unfortunately neither has a C-, we have trump saying he will make a C- in 2021 after he is re-elected and he has proven to be an outright liar.
If he had been actively pushing sound policies from day one I would likely have a different opinion.

His supporters may think that it is funny that he lies constantly, or that he is just joking or “trolling the libralz” — I don’t.

The best government looking at the recent drops in government spending and good policy is a closely divided congress and a Democratic President. That is what I will vote for.

 

As someone that runs a few small businesses I can assure you this is false — you might need to implement new policy or switch vendors but you can oftentimes receive equal or better quality by changing other factors that result in lower cost. Not always and sometimes you get significantly lower quality for lower cost — it’s a balancing act.

Our healthcare is not rated the best except in a few areas so it is kind of incorrect to make other “free” healthcare be bologna while saying ours is steak. The US has higher prescription costs for the same drugs, higher medical equipment costs for the same equipment, much much higher administrative costs, higher percentages of medical errors, lower quality of care, lower compassion of care and overall worse results.

If you cannot afford to eat the steak in your scenario or doing so will make you lose your home — and you look at the neighboring restaurant and they are serving steak it is just seasoned differently but costs half the price of the steak you cannot afford and there is no way you will lose your home (maybe has a slightly longer wait if it isn’t an emergency) most people will go to option B.

 

So no objective metrics for quality of healthcare. Just the opinion of the people receiving free ****?

I think this discussion has run its course you are not convincing end doubt there's anything that will convince you. The only resolution is to agree to disagree.

 

women within a capitalist meritocratic system absolutely. Government taking over is anti meritocratic. You will pay exorbitant prices for the worst because that's how government works.

90% of the medical costs you incur is the Robin Hood system. Where would you have insurance they charge you $19 for a q-tip. that's to recoup the cost of the people who come in there and get services and never pay for it.

as far as whether it's better or not I have seen no objective metrics to indicate. Everything I've seen is how satisfied people are with their medical care. you're probably going to feel like you get a better value if you paid nothing for it even if it's terrible.

I know you want to insist that it's equal or better or maybe just slightly worse but insistence is it not argument present cold hard facts or you have nothing.

you're just saying the idiot that got the free bologna sandwich feels like they got a better value then the person who pays for the steak.

 

That isn’t evidenced elsewhere in the world.
Maybe it is just an American government issue — and if so we should be demanding governmental change — not ignoring good policy.

Number of medical errors, medical complications, general life expectancy, eventual medical outcomes, infant mortality along with personal satisfaction are all valid metrics.

You are ignoring the evidence. Why don't you present some showing that we receive substantial better care than nations that spend half of what we do (the vast majority of the cost difference come from administrative costs btw)

No, I am not — I am saying you comparing healthcare in the US is a steak while healthcare in other nations that is higher quality in many areas is bologna is an absurd metric. At minimum we need a public option.

 

3.5 Trillion - is the metric you are not considering.

 

So no objective metrics?

I wouldn't present any evidence for anything because I'm not arguing for anything you are. I'm just doubting your claims cuz they sound cockamamie.

 

You're crap about somehow buying more stuff with government money is cheaper than not doing that doesn't make sense. it didn't make sense the first time you said it you can say it 9,000 more times and it won't make any more sense.

I'm sorry you're so poor at apologetics.

 

You don’t believe infant mortality is an “objective metric”?
Here is an entire article on the costs and comparisons to other nations for you to ignore: https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2019/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries

And yes, you are arguing something — you are arguing that the status quo, that has numerous measurable failures, is preferable to change.
You can present no evidence because none exists on the general topic. The US does really well with speciality treatments (if you can afford it) it fails in virtually every other category.

 

Depends. What's counted as infant mortality?

I'm not going to go research your argument if you can't make it then just leave what are you doing here?

that's a lie I'm not arguing for that. I'm just doubting your claims.

I have made no positive, what do I need to show evidence for? This is like a Christian demanding for proof that there is no God.

 

.......

 

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

Peer reviewed paper showing single payer systems provide better quality care at a fraction of the cost we pay. If you disagree, present your evidence that my paper, and all the data therein is wrong.

 

I didn’t ask you to research anything, I presented some of the main metrics we fail in — you dismiss them as not objective; I post an infographic — you ignore it; I post a source that details the differences between our nation and other — you say you are having to research my argument...

You are obviously uninterested in discussing this in good faith — as is typical — and I will head your advice to leave the discussion.
I am tired of arguing with people that bury their head and scream “USA is #1” and “winning!”

 

But that is making him research!!!

 

Tis you who has been in abject denial - and now trying to project your failings onto others.

We paid 3.5 Trillion for Healthcare in 2017 - The claim that we can not do better for our money - is abject nonsense on steroids.