|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread.
The problem with your position is the knowledge that other countries (and the US itself) have tried to let the free market solve healthcare.
And it has never worked.
The Netherlands tried it if you want an example. Premiums went up, care quality did not improve, waiting lists did not improve.
The free market does not solve Healthcare.
|
On September 21 2017 05:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:34 mustaju wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. So instead of answering his question, that I think a lot of us have, you choose to attack the person? It's a fairly common argument that UHC has justified itself worldwide. "I choose to believe differently" is not exactly a compelling argument. You should really read my original post. You show an absolute lack of understanding to what launched Kwark to respond. I have limited time here and don't want to waste anybody's time when people go on the ever-popular "What does Danglars think about X bill." I've spent maybe two or three days of accumulated time in past pages of this thread to why I think what I think. Maybe if the trolling and shitposting calms down, we can return to long posts that contain statistics and understanding of the other's arguments. Kwark personally has a bit of history on this forum, you can look that up too.
Does it bother you when I do this? I do it a fair amount, but I can stop if you want. One of my main reasons for reading this thread is to get other people's perspectives on politics, and I especially want the conservative POV because I have a harder time understanding it, and it's a little harder for me to find. Most people are pretty happy to talk about their opinions when asked so I assumed you wouldn't mind, but I can try to do it less if you want.
|
There is something poetic about Danglars accusing people of having a religious devotion to single payer and then saying he believes if free market solutions to healthcare.
|
Wow, I read that linked Tyler Cowen piece. He cites the CBO as saying that finances are on an unsustainable path, thus we should support a bill that isn't CBO scored. Tyler Cowen's craven intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. He should just say that he is for all ideological conservative things (FEDERALISM) independent of any analysis of evidence or policy. At least Hugh Hewitt is upfront that he values his ideology more than the healthcare consequences of other people.
|
On September 21 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:
There is something poetic about Danglars accusing people of having a religious devotion to single payer and then saying he believes if free market solutions to healthcare.
I figured I must be missing something because it's just so elegant?
|
On September 21 2017 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. The problem with your position is the knowledge that other countries (and the US itself) have tried to let the free market solve healthcare. And it has never worked. The Netherlands tried it if you want an example. Premiums went up, care quality did not improve, waiting lists did not improve. The free market does not solve Healthcare.
The US hasn't had free market healthcare in 74 years.
On September 21 2017 05:52 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:41 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:34 mustaju wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. So instead of answering his question, that I think a lot of us have, you choose to attack the person? It's a fairly common argument that UHC has justified itself worldwide. "I choose to believe differently" is not exactly a compelling argument. You should really read my original post. You show an absolute lack of understanding to what launched Kwark to respond. I have limited time here and don't want to waste anybody's time when people go on the ever-popular "What does Danglars think about X bill." I've spent maybe two or three days of accumulated time in past pages of this thread to why I think what I think. Maybe if the trolling and shitposting calms down, we can return to long posts that contain statistics and understanding of the other's arguments. Kwark personally has a bit of history on this forum, you can look that up too. Does it bother you when I do this? I do it a fair amount, but I can stop if you want. One of my main reasons for reading this thread is to get other people's perspectives on politics, and I especially want the conservative POV because I have a harder time understanding it, and it's a little harder for me to find. Most people are pretty happy to talk about their opinions when asked so I assumed you wouldn't mind, but I can try to do it less if you want.
I'm perfectly willing to give it, did you see my post? It's just the usual sources demand a defense or express incredulity that people don't like UHC. The last three times (perhaps more, its been a few years), nobody even rose to understanding the other side ... preferring to ignore, and deflect, and do the demagogue schtick. So lesson learned. The new here deserve a little disclaimer, since they might not have read 10292 pages of liberals vs conservatives and right vs left. in this forum.
|
On September 21 2017 05:53 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Wow, I read that linked Tyler Cowen piece. He cites the CBO as saying that finances are on an unsustainable path, thus we should support a bill that isn't CBO scored. Tyler Cowen's craven intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. He should just say that he is for all ideological conservative things (FEDERALISM) independent of any analysis of evidence or policy. At least Hugh Hewitt is upfront that he values his ideology more than the healthcare consequences of other people.
Thanks for reading the link. He had a good summary of the proposal.
|
On September 21 2017 06:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:53 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Wow, I read that linked Tyler Cowen piece. He cites the CBO as saying that finances are on an unsustainable path, thus we should support a bill that isn't CBO scored. Tyler Cowen's craven intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. He should just say that he is for all ideological conservative things (FEDERALISM) independent of any analysis of evidence or policy. At least Hugh Hewitt is upfront that he values his ideology more than the healthcare consequences of other people. Thanks for reading the link. He had a good summary of the proposal.
Do you think it is okay to pass Cassidycare without a CBO score? Hugh and Tyler cry YOLO FEDERALISM and that is good enough for them. And then the deeper question, does the Republican effort to try and force this bill through before a CBO score affect your judgment of Republicans? Do you still think they are an evidence based political party? The Republican effort here is pretty clear. They know that the last CBO score which found tens of millions losing care and costs going up was devastating. So now they are trying to get ahead of the evidence. Why would you align yourself with such a dishonest and fact-free effort?
|
We know what a pure free market looks like and its a disaster for regular people that is why there are regulations in place to keep the free market from screwing people over. Why would health care be any different? Why wouldnt it end the exact same way when peoples lives are on the line?
Any health care plan boils down to one of two possibilities. Either the healthy pay for the sick and vulnerable or the sick and vulnerable die. No matter how you dress it up, no matter what method you use, tax subsidies, an individual mandate, an expanded medicare/medicaid, it doesn't matter. No matter how many degrees of separation you create either the healthy are paying for the sick or the sick wont be able to afford care and they will die.
|
On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread.
I think I kinda agree with you on this one. Beyond that, I think the fixation on single payer is a little detrimental. There are plenty of ways to achieve universal healthcare, which is simply defined as everyone has access to quality affordable care, single payer being one of many models around the world which work.
|
On September 21 2017 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:
There is something poetic about Danglars accusing people of having a religious devotion to single payer and then saying he believes if free market solutions to healthcare. I figured I must be missing something because it's just so elegant?
The Free Market as the conservatives know it is some economic savior that can fix all price related issues through hard work and the cream rising to the top. It is some mystical force that can fix any economic problem. It is economic Jesus. Forget the fact that the rising is caused by failure and without regulation, that failure can destroy the market as a whole. That part is problematic, especially when applied to things like schools and hospitals.
This conflicts with the views of the person who coined the term. To him, the free market was something that needs to be carefully managed by the government to all people to participate in it and assure it was transparent. Adam Smith was a big supporter of things conservatives dislike, like social safety nets. Why? Because people who dropped out of the market, like the poor or sick, hurt the market’s ability to provide value and efficiency to the community. So the government should take care of them to assure they could return to the market as soon as possible.
|
On September 21 2017 06:20 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:08 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:53 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Wow, I read that linked Tyler Cowen piece. He cites the CBO as saying that finances are on an unsustainable path, thus we should support a bill that isn't CBO scored. Tyler Cowen's craven intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. He should just say that he is for all ideological conservative things (FEDERALISM) independent of any analysis of evidence or policy. At least Hugh Hewitt is upfront that he values his ideology more than the healthcare consequences of other people. Thanks for reading the link. He had a good summary of the proposal. Do you think it is okay to pass Cassidycare without a CBO score? Hugh and Tyler cry YOLO FEDERALISM and that is good enough for them. And then the deeper question, does the Republican effort to try and force this bill through before a CBO score affect your judgment of Republicans? Do you still think they are an evidence based political party? The Republican effort here is pretty clear. They know that the last CBO score which found tens of millions losing care and costs going up was devastating. So now they are trying to get ahead of the evidence. Why would you align yourself with such a dishonest and fact-free effort?
I don't like it with or without a CBO score, so have at it. You should probably already know from the post where I linked that story how much I detest Congressional Republicans and how little I think they can get done that I like until they're hauled out of Congress by their voters.
And lol at "evidence based political party." I'm not into the whole "this and that is anti-science" style arguments. I don't think they've lost touch with reality, they're just responding to backwards political incentives from Trump, donors, and incumbency.
You probably haven't read a word I wrote if you think I'm "aligning myself with such a dishonest and fact-free effort?" Ponder deeply on what it means for wanting them to lose seats over current legislative efforts, or what alignment is present in saying this series of bills is drawing "the best platter we can draw out of the pile of steaming turds."
|
On September 21 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. The problem with your position is the knowledge that other countries (and the US itself) have tried to let the free market solve healthcare. And it has never worked. The Netherlands tried it if you want an example. Premiums went up, care quality did not improve, waiting lists did not improve. The free market does not solve Healthcare. The US hasn't had free market healthcare in 74 years.
Healthcare was never been on a free market in any country. A free market requires the consumer to make informed choices based on the best information possible. That is not how hospitals are built or clinics are set up. People do not get 7 different options of maternity wards to have their baby. They get one, maybe two if they are willing to drive long distance.
|
|
|
Single payer is just a form of UHC and UHC is what I want. I suppose I could see how you could argue that single payer as a specific scheme is oversold. Not sure I'd agree (it seems to be on the right track) but that at least is worth a debate.
|
I think part of the confusion here is that many times conservatives will argue "the government is incapable of doing healthcare efficiently," which is a factual-ish claim that could be argued against using examples like other countries' health systems. I think Danglars is getting at a more philosophical disagreement about what a good healthcare system even looks like. I don't know exactly what his ideal looks like, but for instance, if someone decided they wanted to shoulder a lot of their risk themselves, so they got no insurance or skimpy insurance and had to deal with substandard care or pay out if pocket in an emergency, most of us here would call that a failure of the system. Danglars might think that's perfectly fine if that's what that person wants.
I would argue there are fundamental problems with using an insurance model to cover healthcare. Kwark talked about some of the problems a while back, and I think there are other issues he didn't even bring up. But fundamentally, for healthcare to be a fully free-market model you'd need to either dramatically reduce the significance of insurance payments and expect everyone to have retirement-like savings accounts that they pay into their whole life to take care of themselves in old age, or you'd need insurance contracts that people opt into at young ages where the premium is really high relative to their costs while they're young, but the insurance company can't raise it when you get older - but you have to lock it in while your costs are still low.
Fundamentally, though, I think any free market answer has to be willing to let someone die if they can't afford care. You could have private charity taking care of people in some heartbreaking cases, but if people have a reasonable expectation that they'll be covered even if they don't put money in the HSA and/or lock into an insurance plan while they're young, the system breaks down. That means if someone is stupid and doesn't prepare for getting sick when they're old, even very treatable conditions have to be left to their natural course. That's where I think I can't get behind the ideal of free market healthcare, even in theory.
|
as if tellin them his friends are getting rich off them wasn't enough. that really is good TV.
|
So who the hell is in on Cassidycare then? I checked out the PRO case and it was junk. I was thinking maybe you (Danglars) would be in on it, but you aren't. That's good because this bill is bad. Bringing back shit tier insurance that doesn't cover anything, lifetime caps, maternal care taxes, and pre-existing condition bans on a state by state basis in the name of FEDERALISM is pure villainy.
The CBO score is going to devastating btw. Cassidycare block grants medicaid and has targeted funding cuts to states that expanded medicaid because LIBRUL TEARS are actual conservative policy now.
|
United States43350 Posts
In fairness they decided to call a country Namibia after Zambia already existed. That's not Trump's fault, that's Africa's.
|
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
