Single Payer Too Exspensive, No Way?

The VA???!

Seriously?

Exactly, except that with health care you also schedule some procedures, so it's more akin to car insurance plus maintenance insurance. Imagine what you'd do if you were used to having routine servicing done as part of your "auto policy", and suddenly you're having for fork over $300 for routine brake work, then $500 for routine transmission and engine work, etc, etc. You start putting those things off because they're coming directly out of pocket in huge hunks, whereas with the low deductible plan you were only paying $75 or $100 for them. In theory, this would be because you'd made a choice to go to a cheaper plan, putting the savings toward your own auto-service account. In reality, your insurance costs went up (as happened in the majority of states) while your deductibles went way up, so you're left holding the bag. The reason is that you got raided so the state could cover all the uninsured motorists - who won't be doing proper maintenance because the deductibles are too high.

You're right, the article says it's not truly single payer. You claim that VT wasn't attempting to achieve single payer, they were, they just couldn't and that's where politico steps in and says,"and that's with it not even being true single payer." In other word, how bad would it be had they included the missing pieces? It seems tha politico is implying it would be even worse and more costly. Furthermore, politico points out that Johnathan Gruber was originally tapped to help with the law, even he couldn't make sense of it and criticized it. That's pretty bad when a law is so convoluted even Gruber thinks it's too non-transparent.

No, it's their way or the highway.

Yeah, believe it or not the VA gets very high customer satisfaction ratings. Higher than any private insurance company.

Oh yeah, the VA is just doing a peachy job. Give me a break.

I find this post ironic as you already said in this very thread that facts have no influence over your position. Everyone else, even (dare I say it?) John Castle occasionally modifies his stances on issues to reflect the facts but that is something you have said you will never do.

So one of us really does have a "my way or the highway" attitude and it is funnier than shit that you, the guilty party, are accusing other people.

It's a fair cop. Still, doesn't mean it's untrue.

Anyway, I'd rather be "factfree" than ridiculous or absurd (unless that was what I was going for).

Presenting the VA as winning example of "single payer" kind of humorously undermines any credibility of your opinion.

So you are OK with repealing Obamacare and moving towards a free market system that Castle talked about in an earlier post?

The convoluted rationalization behind that statement has the virtue of making you all three.

I've asked you this before and you've run away, but when do you plan to start?

You are a liar. The medicaid expansion covers them for free. The Republican shit stains have blocked that in some red states even though the feds would pay for 100% of it so Republicans and Republicans alone are responsible for that.

They are basically terrorists refusing to allow medical care for poor people which wouldn't cost them a penny.

You really are brain damaged. Did you even understand what facts are? Because Castle hasn't used any.

I have always said facts should form the basis of policy. What is the major malfunction which prevents you from understanding that?

If facts lead me to believe that single payer worked, I would still be gainst it because I have certain political beliefs that are contrary to the idea of single payer. I named them in an earlier post, but I will state the most important one again. It's unconstitutional. If the people decide to amend the constitution to allow it, I will still oppose it, but at least it will have gone through the constitutional process. There are other reasons I oppose it as well and you're welcome to debate those with me one by one.

So you're against it because reasons, but if those reasons are ever no longer valid in the future, you're still against it?

Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

You'd be more accurate in calling them "religious beliefs," because you clearly view the Constitution as some sort of sacred document whose intrinsic value has nothing to do with the people it's intended to represent.

That said, though, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your belief that this particular piece of legislation is "unconstitutional."

Single payer will always be an entitlement, yes? It will always be tax funded and therefore an additional tax on the people, yes? It will always be a national program and therefore further erode the idea of federalism, yes? It will always erode free market solutions, yes?

Let me ask you this. Would you support a national ban on abortion? Would you support a national ban on gay marriage? If the answer is no, then why? Is it because it violates your core beliefs? If f the answer is yes, then you have my answer as to why I will never support single payer.

Um, if they're on Medicaid then they're poor people, not middle class people. Those are not the people we're talking about.

Show me specifically where in the Constitution the words are written, "Congress shall provide health care for all citizens" or something to that effect. Also, show me the enumeration that grants Congress that power. Don't cite the commerce clause or the power to tax and we can go from there.

Wait. You and Castle have been touting single-payer all day. Make up your mind.

Aren't you the one who was babbling earlier about only caring about results?

It does not contain the words "Congress shall allow all citizens to open carry Bushmaster AR-15s," but half of WF labors under the delusion that it does.

What the Preamble does say is "...to promote the general welfare." Now, to a rational person, that means a healthy country is a strong country with a productive citizenry working toward a strong economy.

I'll be happy to explain any of those words you don't understand.

The Founding Fathers also didn't say we could have an Air Force. Ergo, unconstitutional!

The Preamble is a statement of why the government is set up, it does not state enumerated powers, that comes later in article 1. Fail.

The Preamble is part of the Constitution, that sacred document you value above the people it was written to represent. You can't discard a portion of the sacred text because it makes you uncomfortable.

If you're unable to define "promote the general welfare," just say so.

It also doesn't say that cops can't search your phone, but wouldn't you agree that he fourth amendment still applies under the term effects?

Yes, I would, but I'm not the one playing Strict Constructionist here.

Again, the preamble doesn't enumerate powers, it's a general statement of why government exists.

And as a strict constructionist, I understand the term (in early 19th century terms) to be personal items such as diaries, saddle bags and in modern terms cell phones. All personal items that are on your person are considered effects. If I had a pack of ciggerettes that contained a joint, that is my personal effects and are not subject to search without a warrant even though packs of ciggerettes didn't exist back then.

So you do acknowledge that every single thing that isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution isn't automatically unconstitutional ... sometimes.