sleeper;1836108 wrote:Do you ask the same question about Medicare?

sleeper;1836106 wrote:What's there to debate?

One person thinks we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens through a realistic system and the other wants poor people to die in the street until charitable organizations in fantasy land step in.

You'll never guess which one is the atheist and which one is the Christian. Bizarre world we live in.

One person thinks we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens through a realistic system and the other wants poor people to die in the street until charitable organizations in fantasy land step in

like_that;1836114 wrote:You're avoiding the question. Are you ok with one party having complete control of our healthcare?

sleeper;1836117 wrote:I am okay with the federal government running a low cost high quality healthcare system like every modern nation on the planet.

HitsRus;1836116 wrote:yep...we can take care of our most vulnerable....rob the rich and fund Planned Parenthood!

like_that;1836118 wrote:It's ok you don't have to answer the question. I know it's "no." Grow up and grow a pair.

O-Trap;1836115 wrote:This is a great example of a strawman. Well-done.

One believes we should help the most vulnerable citizens because we're good people and we care about them.

The other thinks someone should hold a proverbial gun to our heads to pay up, because they promise they'll take care of it and get it to the people who need it.

You'll never guess which one graduated from THE Ohio State University.

No. You provided a third-party's metrics about a country that isn't the United States.

Until you can provide the data as to why it would work in the US, you've not met the burden of proof.

Why do I feed the troll?

sleeper;1836119 wrote:Yes, let's eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization that single handily is responsible for lowering abortions and providing low cost healthcare to the nation's most vulnerable women.

Those evil bastards, DEFUND THEM!

jmog;1836110 wrote:Ah, strawman fallacy at it's finest. Congratulations, you couldn't have built a better strawman if you were in the Land of Oz.

CenterBHSFan;1836125 wrote:Doesn't medicaid and OB/GYN's do the same thing? Why do we need to fund PP with tax dollars when we already fund Medicaid?

sleeper;1836127 wrote:Not everyone has access to Medicaid.

Any other questions?

sleeper;1836120 wrote:The answer is yes. Like every other civilized nation, Single Payer healthcare costs less and provides better quality.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

like_that;1836129 wrote:What feelings? I simply asked you a question numerous times, but you were a coward to answer it truthfully, because you know it contradicts with your logic. You cry about the GOP and their stance on abortion, yet you would be ok with them running our healthcare... LOL tell us more about how upset you are with some of the logic people use to decide their votes. Congrats on taking a Ben Shapiro quote to act tough though. Also, low cost and better quality is a pipe dream utopia if you want the government to run it. The only way you bring lower costs and BETTER quality is through competition. Try reading an econ 101 book.

As I said earlier, if single payer is so great why do Canadians come to the US for serious operations? Ask most military members how they feel about Tricare (if you are not familiar, this is the military's healthcare and it is single payer on a smaller scale). They will tell you the quality is "meh" at best even though they have free healthcare.

sleeper;1836126 wrote:Yes, a straw man because I refuse to engage in someone who says "Trust me, believe me, Charities are there and will take care of our poor"

Okay, Trump. Where are these Charities? Prove the model; where is the money? Where are the BILLIONS needed to take care of our poor? This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've had to explain to someone over the age of 3 since the last thread where I had to explain that women are people too.

CenterBHSFan;1836128 wrote:"most vulnerable women" means: low income, probably women of color, urban locked
Which means that they are most likely able to receive medicaid

sleeper;1836130 wrote:Abortion will never be illegal in this country. The moment Roe v. Wade is overturned is the moment Civil War 2.0 will break out.

We will not go backwards.

like_that;1836131 wrote:Trump won't do it, but the concept is pretty simple. Cut unnecessary Government funding and as a result the people will have fatter wallets. Fatter wallets gives people more felxibility with how they want to spend/donate/save their money. The US donated over $400B last year. I think the people can figure out which needy causes need their donations. This would also force non profits to be on top of their game. Planned Parenthood survived 50+ years without federal funding, so I am sure plenty of other non profits can do the same.

like_that;1836133 wrote:That would be a quick civil war considering most liberals hate guns :RpS_lol:.

Also you are certain Trump is the next Hitler, but also certain Roe V Wade will never be overturned? You should take a week or so to organize where your logic is coming from. I think your "real sleeper" flowchart is interloping with your "troll sleeper" flowchart.

sleeper;1836134 wrote:In order for that to true you have to link the assumption that fatter wallets WILL translate into enough charitable giving to accommodate the needs of our poorest people.

Especially when you factor in the same people want more money in their wallets and less going to the poors via tax cuts. Brilliant! Have you honestly ever taken a behavioral economics course?

like_that;1836140 wrote:If the nation is willing to drop 400B my bet is they would do more if they could. Sorry I have more faith in people than you do.