Read Elizabeth Warren’s lips: No middle class tax hike to fund $20T Medicare for All

You're free to refute the peer reviewed paper I posted, but we both you know you won't do that.

 

The Democrats are catastrophic for the American working class.

 

Sadly sadly sadly, there are about 60+ million people in this country that are told how to think and follow orders, so they will believe it. Any time they get confused they turn on Rachel and that dude tells them what to think.

 

Yeah, maybe not with health care, the "if you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor" lie was pretty upsetting to folks.

SMOKE SIGNALS GOING UP: Stick a fork in Liz Warren, Medicare-for-All has cooked her.

A recent New York magazine headline posited, “Elizabeth Warren Has Good Reasons to Stay Vague on Health Care.” Or as NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen Orwellianly tweeted earlier this month, “The ‘make Elizabeth warren say she would raise taxes on the middle class’ question should be a credibility killer. For the journalists who keep asking it.”



There’s no way that 160 million Americans who like their healthcare plans — including labor unions — will want to see them made illegal.

Nor will any rational citizen want to have critical health-care decisions being made by faceless government bureaucrats who will decide what doctor you can see, and what medical treatment or surgery you’re permitted to get — or not.

Looks like Dems are back to Quid Pro Quo Joe

 

You didn’t post one, as I’ve pointed out.

 

I pointed out that I did post one.

 

Which I showed you didn’t, as you can’t.

 

It failed in Vermont after an extensive study and push.

It won't work here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...789018-3ab8-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html

 

You didn't show I didn't, and not only that, I did.

 

If you climbed to the top of the stack of Warren promises, you would pass out for lack of oxygen.

 

When she says "costs for families would go down" I get what she's saying, that even when taxes go up, we would still save money because medical costs would go down more than the higher taxes. However, if she doesn't tell me what percentage my taxes would go up, how can I figure out whether that is true? Also, I have a low premium/high deductible plan, which I am happy with, as I never go to the doctor, so how will I save money, and why would I want my taxes to go up??

 

If you happen to have something and not nothing, throw me something Mister.

 

I can’t prove a negative. But the evidence is the total absence of a peer reviewed paper, posted by you, that rebuts the one I gave.

 

Giggles.
Null hypothesis is in effect until you can demonstrate otherwise.

HINT: you will need some type of analysis on your "empirical data".

 

So logic isn’t your thing. Got it.

still can’t find any data to rebut what you’ve been given I see. It’s ok, we both know why.

 

You gave me unanalyzed data, so you haven't given anything to rebut.

Go analyze your data

 

I can prove a negative claim. Your statement, for example: "I can't prove a negative" is actually a negative claim. If you can prove it to be true, then it disproves itself.

I also directly refuted your proof. It was the post immediately after your proof.

 

still can’t find any data to rebut what you’ve been given I see. It’s ok, we both know why.

 

So logic isn’t your thing either. Got it.

 

My post was perfectly logical. "I can't prove a negative" is a negative claim. If that statement is true, it disproves itself. If it's false, then you can prove a negative claim.

 

https://www.jstor.org/

I have now increased the data by orders of magnitude.

 

So you further demonstrate logic isn’t your thing. Ok.

 

There’s no data there. It’s a search engine. Strike 2.

 

What's the study design?

 

It's moments like these that make this conversation so enjoyable.

Rahl can't find any data in JSTOR. Of course he would dare say it's not there because that would be proving a negative.... But wait...