[Finfinder]

I think you are missing the point.

I'm not missing the point rather than putting in perspective of what the reality is. Furthermore isn't the point to objectively appose Trump on every single issue.

Just FYI, an old guy like Trump can spread the virus for over a month, so he is still putting the lives of others at risk.

This foreshadows what a Biden presidency and his supporters want. They want to persecute and jail people who do not blindly obey them.

[Rancid]

I'm not missing the point rather than putting in perspective of what the reality is.

No, you're missing the point.

[Finfinder]

No, you're missing the point.

Yet you seem not able or willing to state the point.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Finfinder

The point is that people are losing their health insurance now for several reasons. Some of those reasons are because of Trump. These same people who are losing health insurance also helped pay for Trump’s free medical service.

This is a stupid way to run health care.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder

The point is that people are losing their health insurance now for several reasons. Some of those reasons are because of Trump. These same people who are losing health insurance also helped pay for Trump’s free medical service.

This is a stupid way to run health care.

People have been losing their health insurance for the last 12 years. I agree with you that it's stupid for the government to think they can run health care efficiently and force people to participate.

Every president in American history receives the best medical service, it's part of the job and office. Of course Trump donates his entire salary every year to places like the Department of Health and Human Services but no one with your bias will acknowledge this.

[Pants-of-dog]

People have been losing their health insurance for the last 12 years.

No, this is incorrect.

I agree with you that it's stupid for the government to think they can run health care efficiently and force people to participate.

This is an incredibly stupid thing to say when you consider the fact that every government of every developed country in the world does this.

Every president in American history receives the best medical service, it's part of the job and office. Of course Trump donates his entire salary every year to places like the Department of Health and Human Services but no one with your bias will acknowledge this.

None of this is relevant.

[Finfinder]

No, this is incorrect.

This is an incredibly stupid thing to say when you consider the fact that every government of every developed country in the world does this.

None of this is relevant.

When the cost of everyones health care coverage drastically increases and is limited and is mandated, it is in effect the same as losing it.

Your statement is incredible stupid considering the quality of health care and the rites and choices of those people is considerable lower and is not absolute.

You saying your straw man argument is relevant because of your bias.

[Pants-of-dog]

When the cost of everyones health care coverage drastically increases and is limited and is mandated, it is in effect the same as losing it.

Or if they lose their job because of the economic crisis caused by the virus, as 12 million people have. ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-ins ... sponsored/ )

And that would be in addition to the 1.3 million who ha=e lost health insurance since Trump took office. ( https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -beware-e/ )

Your statement is incredible stupid considering the quality of health care and the rites and choices of those people is considerable lower and is not absolute.

No, not really.

It is a true fact that developed countries offer public health care to their citizens, attain better results than the USA, and pay less than the USA.

Since that is the case, it is logical to assume that the USA can do this too. This would only be wrong if here was some sort of problem with US citizens making them incapable of running a public health care plan.

You saying your straw man argument is relevant because of your bias.

This sentence makes no sense.

[Godstud]

When the cost of everyones health care coverage drastically increases and is limited and is mandated, it is in effect the same as losing it.

really, and that's why in countries with Universal Healthcare, the healthcare costs are 1/2 what they are in the USA. Please, tell me more.

[Finfinder]

really, and that's why in countries with Universal Healthcare, the healthcare costs are 1/2 what they are in the USA. Please, tell me more.

You assume the government taking over health care reduces the cost of health care and guarantees the quality and access. You also assume incorrectly that freedom of choice isn't a tenant of American society. Americans agree the cost of health care is too high. The government has proven they cannot effectively reduce the cost of health care and maintain peoples freedoms by taking over the private sector and forcing people to subsidise every one elses additional access to health care.

If you have a problem with tax payers paying for a presidents access to high quality of health care then why do you not have a problem with people refusing their taxes to pay for things like abortions or whatever the government forces them too.

We cannot figure out the acess to healthcare problem, until we figure how out to reduce the cost of it.

[what kid marley]

free healthcare = hologram

[Pants-of-dog]

You assume the government taking over health care reduces the cost of health care and guarantees the quality and access.

No. People in developed countries have access to high quality access care that is free at point of use. This is not an assumption but instead is a direct lived experience.

You also assume incorrectly that freedom of choice isn't a tenant of American society.

If freedom of choice were a tenet of US society, you would pressure insurance companies to give as much freedom of choice as the government. As a citizen of Alberta, I can access any clinics or hospitals or doctors or specialists in Alberta. If I had private insurance, my only choices would be from the list of places and people that have a contract with my insurance provider.

Americans agree the cost of health care is too high. The government has proven they cannot effectively reduce the cost of health care and maintain peoples freedoms by taking over the private sector and forcing people to subsidise every one elses additional access to health care.

The government was able to give Trump free treatment without taking away anyone’s freedom, and you seem okay with subsidising his medical care. Why should you not get the same?

[Finfinder]

No. People in developed countries have access to high quality access care that is free at point of use. This is not an assumption but instead is a direct lived experience.



If freedom of choice were a tenet of US society, you would pressure insurance companies to give as much freedom of choice as the government. As a citizen of Alberta, I can access any clinics or hospitals or doctors or specialists in Alberta. If I had private insurance, my only choices would be from the list of places and people that have a contract with my insurance provider.



The government was able to give Trump free treatment without taking away anyone’s freedom, and you seem okay with subsidising his medical care. Why should you not get the same?

Obviously you don't have comprehension of my post which adresses all of that, nor do you seem to have insight as to what Americans want ,which is not the Canada's healthcare system.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Finfinder

You seem to have no intelligent criticisms of my arguments.

Have a good day!

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder

You seem to have no intelligent criticisms of my arguments.

Have a good day!

Of course I do, If I did not, you would enact your style of always having get in the last word. I acknowledge your understanding of knowing when you are over your head.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Finfinder

Please explain how my experiences with public health care undermine my claims.

I made two claims:

1. People who use public health care have more personal choice than people who use private care.

I clarified this by explaining that people who use public healthcare can use any medical facilities or professionals in the province, but people who use private insurance are limited to those facilities and professionals that have a contract with the insurance company.

2. My second claim was that we directly enjoy paying less for medical care and get better results. This is therefore not an assumption but instead is something we actually see in our lives.

Let me know how I am wrong. Thanks!

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder

Please explain how my experiences with public health care undermine my claims.

I made two claims:

1. People who use public health care have more personal choice than people who use private care.

I clarified this by explaining that people who use public healthcare can use any medical facilities or professionals in the province, but people who use private insurance are limited to those facilities and professionals that have a contract with the insurance company.

2. My second claim was that we directly enjoy paying less for medical care and get better results. This is therefore not an assumption but instead is something we actually see in our lives.

Let me know how I am wrong. Thanks!

Because I specifically stated that in the US the cost of health care is the primary concern and the US government hasn't demonstrated that their involvement reduces said costs as related to direct and indirect premiums and taxes.

Better results and freedom of choice is very much objective.

I also explained that Americans do not want a wholesale change to a Canadian health care system, so your experience is noted , but it's not what we discuss at the water coolers.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because I specifically stated that in the US the cost of health care is the primary concern and the US government hasn't demonstrated that their involvement reduces said costs as related to direct and indirect premiums and taxes.

This does not contradict the fact that other governments can and do reduce costs for everyone by using public health care.

But you guys are saddled with insurance companies, and their whole purpose is to make money off you.

Better results and freedom of choice is very much objective.

Yes, and that is why public health care is objectively better than private care.

I also explained that Americans do not want a wholesale change to a Canadian health care system, so your experience is noted , but it's not what we discuss at the water coolers.

Yes, many US citizens like giving money to private insurers for no benefit, but their stupidity does not change the fact that we pay less and have more choice.

Also, none of us have lost health coverage because of the ongoing recession.

[Rancid]

I want socialize health care in the US.

Insurance companies are a bunch of scamming racketeers.

[Finfinder]

This does not contradict the fact that other governments can and do reduce costs for everyone by using public health care.

But you guys are saddled with insurance companies, and their whole purpose is to make money off you.



Yes, and that is why public health care is objectively better than private care.



Yes, many US citizens like giving money to private insurers for no benefit, but their stupidity does not change the fact that we pay less and have more choice.

Also, none of us have lost health coverage because of the ongoing recession.

As I explained we don't want your health care, we want our own, so your feelings of superiority and negative judgements of us is immaterial.