I surely will reject something you can’t even sell to a state full of people who claim to want the same thing you say you want. I don’t see a middle ground when it’s putting government in charge of the funding mechanism for health care. You say that isn’t the case. Well I don’t know that I’m sold that won’t be the case.ProfX wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:52 am I have argued this with you too many times already Joe, and am not going to do it any further.
THe only thing I find puzzling is people who say they want more bipartisan cooperation in Washington DC, but really mean only on the conservative policy agenda they prefer.
That's it. You can go back to arguing with GoU over the details of this for another ten pages. I get tired, personally, of arguing with walls, especially walls who say the problem in Washington DC is lack of cooperation.
Universal Health Care is a goal I have, Joe. Most countries share it. For reasons I've posted about many times. The method doesn't matter to me as much as the goal. M4A, a new public option, something like Canada's single payer, those are the three things most people talk about, I only note there are even ways beyond those three. All I know for sure is you'll reject them.
I guess you don't want bipartisan cooperation on THAT because it's not one of your goals. I get that. I'm tired of arguing about it with you.
So I repeat. Show me where “it” works in this country in a state. Pick one. I don’t care. Pass it there. Implement it there. Demonstrate its benefits there. If not, all you are selling is blue sky.
I think there are other alternatives that allowing the government more control in the health care industry other than single payer and other than M4A but that is all you guys will consider. Maybe something outside of government isn’t in line with YOUR goals.
If you don’t want to discuss it anymore. That’s up to you. It matters not to me.