Repealing and replacing Obamacare: What kind of healthcare plan do you support?

They were all American right wingers tuning in to have their prejudices validated.

 

I suggest that you read the link in your "sig" as you deem it. Here you are leading with an appeal to consequences logical fallacy followed by a subjectivist fallacy ending up with an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy after logical fallacy, rhetoric and innuendo does not an argument make.

 

Dishonest would be the denial that all has been answered, item for item. Perhaps you fail to understand that a sentence is defined as a complete thought and a paragraph is sentences strung together as an introduction, the body and a conclusion. If any single thought of a paragraph is in error, the whole paragraph is in error and need not be addressed as it is moot. Of course you could try and ignore this but that would just be dishonesty, your word.

 

As there is no valid question, there can be no valid response. None of the statements are based in reality and rhetoric can only begat rhetoric which is not an answer.

 

While I may have doubt about the lack of reading skills employed, I have no doubt whatsoever on the lack of the skills of comprehension. If you click on the little green double arrows, it will take you back so that you may read the arguments being responded to, but then...

 

Uh huh...

This is what you wrote...

"I would say that would be more like an opinion, that is unless you have something you forgot to add to back up your assertion.


But not to worry, you wouldn't buy from them would you?



And all the courts moved out also?



Actually, giving the federal government anything wouldn't be an extremely bad idea, it would be an extremely idiotic idea. All the poor souls crying, not because they understand what got them to this point, but in spite of it!"

Sounds stupid don't it....

AND

No, my post is my complete thought. Taking a bit of it and responding out of context is dishonest.

 

Yes, of course. There are no "Delaware Corporations."

 

Except by the time you realize it, you have already been paying your premiums, and then all of a sudden are left high and dry when you make the claim and get rejected.

 

Just so there is no confusion, the original post has been brought forward.

While I enjoy being out in the field with the sunshine on my face, the fresh air filling my lungs and nature all around me where the left is no different from the middle or the right, all according to nature. You should try it sometime, it will provide a clarity not possible in a cesspool.

Now looking at your exact quotation, "With a Congress and White House opposed to regulation...", would be a total logical fallacy just based on the 51 distinct titles, each covering a single subject, with just title 26 requiring 20 volumes to contain it, negates the whole argument. And by the way, those 51 titles are how they have and always will serve their masters.

Bring whomever you please, but if their skills are comparable to yours, it would be a moot point.

 

Many other countries in the world have Universal Health Care and they provide better coverage at lower rates. Most of these countries use a Single Payer system and it works much better while being much less complicated than anything else being proposed here so that is what I support.

I'd heard that Trump in fact supported this as well, but most of his appointees in this area are already known to support other systems, so I guess we will have to see.

It's really strange how Trump seems utterly indifferent to overall public support but still seems to find it necessary to pander to his base even though he's in the Office sought. Now's the time to rely upon the continued support of those on his side and take the risk of doing things they oppose in order to make positive accomplishments that will convert those who didn't vote for him.

 

"1.4 Million Americans Will Go Abroad for Medical Care This Year. Should You?

Health care has become so expensive in the United States that a growing number of Americans (and their employers) are finding it more cost efficient to fly across the globe for certain medical procedures. The savings are so great — and the quality high enough — that a handful of American insurance companies are now encouraging the practice and covering the travel and treatment costs.


“Medical tourism” was valued at about $439 billion last year in a new report by Visa and Oxford Economics, which projected that it could grow 25 percent a year over the next decade. This year, an estimated 1.4 million Americans will leave the country for a medical procedure, according to Patients Beyond Borders."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/...s-Will-Go-Abroad-Medical-Care-Year-Should-You

heh..you got one story here is 1.4 million.

Dont be a troll, 6 responses from you, all of no substance...try again please?

Why are you against single payer...in your own words...don't be a media tool.

And you read like a clown just writing logical fallacy all the time as well. knock it off...

Responding with "don't commit them" just screams you have no point to make....try using that noggin to get a point across.

 

Everyone always focuses on the healthcare delivery and costs and rightly so but lost in that is the fact that our unhealthy American lifestyle leads to us being less healthy with unnecessarily inflated healthcare costs. How about a general approach to healthcare and health and wellness that advances the message "hey fata$$, put down the jelly donut, shut the TV off, get off the couch and hop on the treadmill a couple times a week so that you don't develop heart disease and drop dead of a heart attack before you're 50.........ya fat b@stard!" Something like that would be a nice change of pace.

 

How you gonna do that...impose a food gestapo?
Americans have the right to be fat an lazy, then complain that it is too expensive to receive care.

 

He is a libertarian/anarchist...what you expect

 

Au contraire:

[video=youtube;_Zdqp22G_K4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zdqp22G_K4[/video]

Price List

My what a free market approach can accomplish. As for medicines, I would suggest just giving them up.

Odumbo has never been opposed to the healthcare mandate. His goal from the very beginning was to do what Hillary and Bill couldn't and he did. Way back in the beginning there was a full length documentary on the process by PBS's Frontline:

Obama's Deal

 

I said it should be the message not that people should be forced to be healthier but if some lardass thinks I should subsidize the cost of his or her lapband surgery because he or she (yes I'm using gendered pronouns and proud of it mofos) has not enough willpower to stop stuffing their piehole with junk then they can kiss my a$$. Bad health decisions on their part do not constitute financial obligations on my part.

 

Not really true but that is not the object of this discussion other than a comparison.

Again not true, you do have a choice, you may pay a penalty and provide for yourself. Just as in the driver license thing where you surrender your right to travel freely. In fact, rejecting Obumbocare is less restrictive on your freedoms than the driver license because rejecting Odumbocare still leaves you free to engage in medical care or even in health care should you wish. Life always has options up and including terminating life. It is only fear that limits options.

Both the comment you are responding to along with your reply are logical fallacies, the appeal to consequences.

 

So who is going to be god? YOU?

 

So terminating Aunt Jenny is ok with you so long as you don't have to get your hands dirty. Or is it that it's ok for another to terminate another's Aunt Jenny, just not yours?

 

Which reality, the universe's or yours? Denial of that which is in front of you is not reality!

 

Those are your options when you mandate that people with preexisting conditions are not denied coverage or charged extra because of their preexisting conditions (you left out the part about preexisting conditions for some reason). When you remove protections on preexisting conditions your options for healthcare coverage are much broader, but when you tie the protection of people with preexisting conditions to your plan, you have no other choice than to establish some form of collective payment. That's not a fallacy, it's reality

If you have a policy in mind which keeps the features of Obamacare that protect people with preexisting conditions and does not require collective payment, then by all means share it with us. If you know how to make this happen you could very well be our solution to replacing Obamacare

 

Never heard of the 14th Amendment eh? Let me help:

 

Still leading with same logical fallacy I see, let's see:

Appeal to Consequences supported by a Bandwagon fallacy. That eliminates the first sentence as a logical argument.

Then there is the appeal to pity fallacy followed up by what could be considered a cum hoc fallacy, an appeal to poverty or appeal to wealth fallacy or maybe even the Gambler's fallacy.

And that leaves, no argument here to address.

 

No, it would not. Healthcare costs would still vary wildly by State, since Cost-of-Living varies greatly.

Again, look at the data for the costs of child-birth by State as an example:

http://transform.childbirthconnecti...03/national-maternity-payment-comparison1.pdf

 

Actually, I do. That could be the surest and fastest way to fix this whole mess. Let it blow up, destroy itself and hopefully take the government with it. Would probably cost less lives than this constant state of war we seems to perpetually live under. Definitely less lives than another revolution.

Maybe in the next round we could have actual health care.