Single Payer Too Exspensive, No Way?

Origin of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Odd that a wordsmith would get so hung up on language (much less not know its origin), unless it was a flim-flam attempting to hide the fact that, like your acolyte, you have no facts at your disposal.

Once again, feel free to correct that perspective with said facts.

Or just relapse into your usual antics.

No, it would be odd if, say, a plumber got hung up on language, or a construction worker. Who else would get hung up on language except a wordsmith? Unless by "hung up on" you mean "confused by", and then you're just wrong. Are you making a go at turning "being wrong" into a new profession? Will it be known as garameting? I think it could at least be a competitive sport. You could be the world's first gold medal garametist.

A wordsmith who this time last year couldn't tell the difference between a piece of legislation and a website.

A wordsmith who either doesn't understand or, worse, pretends to misunderstand the concept of a word as representative of a thing and not the thing itself. (A plumber would know that you can't tighten a flange with the words "torque wrench," only with the object itself; that you pretend you can is calculatedly moronic.)

A wordsmith who doesn't even know that Politico didn't coin the expression "no true Scotsman."

A wordsmith who cannot or will not accept the challenge @Federal Farmer ran away from yet again:

• Apparently everyone reported to have coverage who didn't have it before is lying.
• Apparently the data on how hospitals are reducing costs and seeing fewer non-emergent cases in their ERs are false.
• Apparently all the charts showing the impact on the economy as a whole were made up just to lie to you.
• Apparently you and FF are the Sole Possessors of the Truth, or perfect exemplars of Stupid Rightist Tricks whom history will point at and laugh.

So go on, now. Keep temporizing.

The reason the hospitals are seeing fewer non-emergency cases is that more people are putting off procedures because of the increased deductibles. That, too, is being tracked.

That's your strawman, you call it Shredded Wheat and eat it.

Not sure where you're even getting this one from.

Another strawman of your own construction. I said they used a "No True Scotsman", I never said they invented the fallacy.

Why would I accept a challenge you issued to someone else? Why would I accept a challenge from you... at all?

Others here remember you shrieking "THE WEBSITE'S BROKEN! THE WHOLE THING IS FAIL BECAUSE THE WEBSITE'S BROKEN!" Your pretending otherwise doesn't help you on any level.

You posted the plumber analogy half an hour ago and you've forgotten it already?

So is that this week's All Gruber, All the Time?

Why would you try to indicate in a public forum that for once you actually knew what you were talking about? Yeah, why ruin a perfect record?

And your inability to understand the difference between "the whole thing", "because", and "the web site" is evidence of your own cognitive failure, not mine.

As numerous posters tried to tell you at the time, but you were too busy running around with your pants around your ankles to notice.

Riddle me this: Do you at least know what's wrong with this word: "Exspensive"? Because FF should be able to trust you on that level, at least.

Now that's an interesting issue, though I haven't yet seen any data. Arguably, there are both pluses and negatives to higher deductibles causing people to not seek treatment. One of the problems with US healthcare, especially regarding cost, has been that there is no financial incentive to not seek treatment, say no to a full range of tests, or shop for a better price on a prescription drug. When everything is paid by somebody else, there is no consumer cost hazard, so we consume and consume and consume. There are two main options for controlling cost associated with unnecessary consumption -- higher deductibles, or Sarah Palin's death panels. I prefer to put that in the hands of the consumer.

If you have to change my words to try to get the point, you've basically conceded the point. Just so you're aware that, well... everybody is aware.

On the contrary.

There is also that oft-mentioned but ne'er-acknowledged third option. Get government out of the equation entirely, eliminate the barriers to interstate competition, and thereby stop subsidizing oligopolies so that insurers have to compete. That will drive down prices across the board so that people will once again not have to use insurance for every-damn-thing.

Everyone knows you're lying. You're laboring under the delusion that others' memories are as addled as yours.

As I say, you're the perfect cautionary tale. Dance on:

I'm only going to point out that this is yet another example of you having no idea what you're talking abut. None at all. Therefore, no response is required.

462,125 new subscribers are reported to have signed up for PPACA coverage in a single week, but @Federal Farmer and @John Castle say it's a lie.

I'm sure you realize this by now, but the fact that you have no response for a valid point other than to concede it, and are vehemently opposed to conceding said valid point, does not invalidate the point you are vehemently opposed to conceding.

Read this, or don't. If you don't like that source, here's another. Empowered consumers are the answer, not government. The validity of my point is independent of your ideologically-limited capacity to honestly acknowledge it.

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about, and every time you blame government for an aspect of our health care system that's market based, it's all that much more clear to the audience.

As for this:

That's why I wrote this:

Medicare and the VA are both single payer systems and both get the highest ratings for customer satisfaction so Tuttle's fact free claim is just that.

So you didn't have a subscription to 2013, I take it.

That is a monumentally stupid claim. "They can't afford X there for they are spending X+Y to get the same result!"

Tell us all about how private health insurers are competing across state lines. Or tell us who is responsible for the fact that they're not. I realize you're paying obeisance to your god and all, but you should probably dial it back. It's actually horrifying in its extremity.

What's truly stupid is, that's not the claim he's making. The actual claim is, "They can't afford X, therefore they're not spending X."

The reason they don't compete across state lines is federalism. That's right, that word you keep rubbing against federal farmer's dick, the glorious 50 laboratories of republican freedom have different rules about what is required to enter business as an insurer. You can't sell a Texas plan in Vermont when the Texas plan violates Vermont law. Does Vermont have the right to different laws from Texas?

In other words, the problem is exactly what I said it was: government. But, as it turns out, not exclusively Federalism.

It's interesting, though, that you'd try to throw the states under the bus to save your darling Feds. Problem is, I pointed at government as the culprit, and that includes both states and Feds. I love it when you support my arguments for me. It's like intellectual aikido.

You keep making the mistake of thinking that I like the ACA. What you term throwing the states under the bus is simply an objective analysis of the fact that different states have different laws. I realize that's probably too complex for your philosophy, which brings us back to my earlier statement: you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Keep dancing, fool.

Actually, it's you who hasn't a clue what I'm talking about, because you're obviously not bothering to examine the supporting arguments I'm posting links to. Go read them, then come back, apologize for acting like a complete dope, and change the subject.

The flaw at both levels is that the government thinks that it must protect consumers from evil business, because a lot of government employees have no clue about how businesses operate and why. The same view is rife throughout the third world, where there are so many anti-business consumer-protection laws that it's almost impossible for anyone to go into business, and thus the consumers are screwed. It's very similar to the impetus to protect common ordinary folk from real estate speculators, thus putting into place laws that make it extremely difficult to buy and sell property and almost impossible to make a profit at it, rendering private property virtually useless as collateral, and thus useless as capital.

What a precious little thing your mind is. Do you mean the links you posted regarding the thing we agreed on? You are so thoroughly confused, you aren't even sure what you're trying to say, other than a reactive, must disagree response. This is fun.

You mean this part?

If you're agreeing with me, why continue to insist that I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about? Nobody's confused here except you if you think that weak sauce is gonna bubble, bub.

Anyway, tomorrow's another 0500 day, so I expect to wake to find more entertaining stupidity from you.

You realize higher deductible equals to lower payments for the customer?

I assume you owe a vehicle. Go look up the rates for a $1000 deductible versus, say, $2500. Health care works the same way.