[Pokerjoe]

Lol. The poll was meant in good fun. So instead you stereotype all Ron Paul supporters as morons. And you dislike Ron Paul because of his supporters, I don't really see the logic there. Did you dislike Obama because all the sheep believed in hope and change?


Sarah Palin =/= Ron Paul

Where's the hypocrisy? There's a difference between wanting care and stealing money to pay for care.

Irrelevant rambling.

With Medicare, Medicaid, and all the regulations evolved in the medical insurance industry, the inefficiency shouldn't be a surprise.

Appeal to emotion.

Ad hominem.

Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single-payer programs and they're the two most expensive entitlements in the entire world. How would adding another single-payer entitlement that multiplies the size of government spending and entitlements reduce the deficit?

Indeed. Let's see what you think the cause of this is...

Astute causal analysis.

This must be the worst logic in your entire tl;dr block of rambling. I think you forgot in your math equation who pays the taxes. Corporations and people do.

More unfounded claims and straw men. Are you willing to provide any evidence for the statement that "the government will do it better than the insurance companies"? I suspect not. Your entire post was just like that. It followed the form of: The government will do X better than private companies because I said so.

This is going to be tedious, but I'm up late and bored, lol.

Sarah Palin =/= Ron Paul Brilliant observation. And irrelevant. He didn't say RP made the statement about death panels, he said "liberal democrats" did, when really it was a Tea Party favorite.

"Where's the hypocrisy? There's a difference between wanting care and stealing money to pay for care." You really can't see the difference between demanding that you get care when you need it, but being willing to deny it to others when they need it? Really? If you can't see the hypocrisy, I'm surprised you can spell the word. And YOU (yes, miserable you) would steal money to pay for care, if you had to.

"Irrelevant rambling." Neither irrelevant,not rambling. It was on point, about the hypocrisy of those who cavalierly would allow (and in fact DO allow) others to die from lack of health care.

My post holds true enough that you didn't refute it, you didn't address it, you merely ran away from it: If your own child was sick, if you didn't have the money, you'd agree to let your child die? Or, you'll always have the money or the insurance to pay for it, there's no chance you're life won't change for the worst?

"With Medicare, Medicaid, and all the regulations evolved in the medical insurance industry, the inefficiency shouldn't be a surprise."
There have to be regulations. The private sector has regulations, every major health care provider in America has tons of regulations, why shouldn't Medicare? Why the double standard? You're the kind of goof that will spend half the time whining about regulations and their cost, and then spend the other half of his time whining about abuse and corruption that can only be fixed with ... regulation. Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, Anthem, all have regulations coming out of their ass. And massive, massive inefficiencies.

"Appeal to emotion." LOL, you don't even know the difference between an appeal to emotion and a recognition of emotion. Saying "a woman will be emotionally crushed by rape, therefore don't do it" is not an appeal to emotion. I said "You're such a diseased human being that when a child is sick and needs treatment, you'll say fug you, die?" That's an attempt to get you to admit your hypocrisy. We all notice you didn't have the guts to come here and say "Yes, you'd let the child die." Again, you hide from the ramifications of your thinking.

So deal with the issue, stated broadly: A fellow human is going to die unless society picks up the health care tab. You let them die?
At least be man enough to say yes, you'd let them die.
Then answer this: if it was you?
Be man enough to again say yes, you'd prefer to die.
Then let us all laugh at you for being a liar and a hypocrite.

You asked "Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single-payer programs and they're the two most expensive entitlements in the entire world. How would adding another single-payer entitlement that multiplies the size of government spending and entitlements reduce the deficit?"
All the money now being spent by employers and individuals for health care, if paid as taxes to the government, would pay for Medicare for everyone with trillions to spare. I don't have the energy to look up the stats, but consider how much more we pay privately for health care compared to Canada, say. The difference, yes, would cure our budget problems.

IOW, if a corporation now spending X dollars on health care instead paid that in taxes, the government could use, say, .5X to provide health care and pocket the rest.

Thus also do I deal with your childish: This must be the worst logic in your entire tl;dr block of rambling. I think you forgot in your math equation who pays the taxes. Corporations and people do.
I didn't forget. I specifically remembered. YOU, otoh, forget that health care is paid for, if not in taxes, otherwise. By corporations and people. It doesn't come out of the air.

I said "We SUCK at health care. Our system sucks. We suck. At health care, the US sucks because morons like you won't let us fix this stupid system."
You said: "Astute causal analysis."
You got something right. Our system does suck and it is because idiots won't let us fix it.

In case you didn't humiliate yourself enough, at the end you said, "Are you willing to provide any evidence for the statement that "the government will do it better than the insurance companies"? I suspect not."

Child, please: study. Learn that, in the advanced nations of the world, where the government does provide the insurance, not the private sector, the cost is much, much less than here, where the corporations do it.

There's all the evidence in the world for it. Read. Learn. Grow.

Or even, just think. Which would be greater: the cost of health insurance, or, the cost of health insurance PLUS the profit corporations need? Hmm, that's a toughie.

As far as your feeble attempt to use "ad hominem" in a sentence, I stand by the statement: "We pay for health care, or we don't. If we don't, we're socially diseased anti-Christian pigs. If we do, we should do it intelligently." We are socially diseased for refusing to cut costs and provide health care for the people. It costs us so much money not to, and so much humanity. It would cost LESS to just provide it to everyone. Less money, and less pain.

You'll say "You have no proof, and the fact that all the other advanced nations do it isn't proof." Then, what is? If the example of our peer nations providing better health care for less money isn't proof, what could be? And how, indeed, can there be "proof" in advance of doing it? You don't have any proof, btw, that national health care wouldn't work.

Grow a set of balls, man up, help people.

And research. Not with your usual bigotry.

I admit to this mistake: I was bored enough to get involved in a forum debate with morons. Moron, me, LOL, no doubt. Not my biggest mistake of the night, though. I earlier called a $700 river bet with ... ah, I don't want to talk about it.