Search results

Except that you don't have competition. Single payer, remember? That's not an incentive to lower costs. Ah, so then, your claim that the government pays for these things was false.

Well, I know from talking to a couple of posters this morning that whatever our colleges are teaching, they're certainly not teaching philosophy or economics.

To assume the effects of something would still be in place is the cause did not exist is a logical fallacy. Why would the bills still be so high if the thing that made them high didn't exist?

You're assuming that their bills would still be as high without government interference.

What's the incentive to lower costs? Where does your government get the money to pay for those pens?

Wow. What a great question. I think you're awesome just the way you are!

The post hoc ergo proptor hoc fallacy assumes an unrelated cause results in a given outcome. In this case, his claim was that the purpose of Medicare and Medicaid did not raise costs is an example of that fallacy because the purpose behind the program is unrelated to the resulting rise in...

No, actually, your logic is erroneous by committing a logical fallacy commonly known as the post hoc ergo proptor hoc fallacy. The purpose of Medicare and Medicaid has nothing to do with their economic effects.

Yeah, actually, they do. Any time you throw free money into something, it's going to increase costs. In this case, because the government took the responsibility of being consumers out of the hands of patients, providers had no incentive to lower costs and because they knew the government...

No, you didn't answer any of them. You didn't explain how you reconcile your support of killing children with your claim to be a Christian. You didn't explain how you expect abortion to be "safe" when the whole point of abortion is to kill somebody. You didn't explain why you want abortion...

Sorry but as long as you refuse to answer my questions, there's really not much point in talking to you.

So, you can't answer any of the questions I asked you?

Why punish the baby for these crimes? Wouldn't the Biblical solution be to punish the men who raped her, not kill the baby and make her a party to the death of a child?

OK. I'll bite: How does wanting people to have more freedom "oppress" them? You realize you're the ones who wants government in every area of everybody's lives, right? Also, you say conservatives are racists. Was Woodrow Wilson a conservative? How about FDR? LBJ? Was the "Great Society"...

First of all, you say you're a Christian. How do you reconcile your support for the killing of children with your claim to be a Christian? Second, you say you want abortion to be "safe". How does that work, exactly, when the whole point of abortion is to kill somebody? Third, you say you want...

No. The Constitution doesn't give the president the power to involve himself in such things. Now, if he wants to do so as a private citizen, perhaps donate some money or create an environmental charity, sure. That would be a great idea. But the office of the president and the government...

And...? Unless it was before 1965, it's irrelevant, as that's when the government created Medicare and Medicaid. Your chart only proves my point that government involvement in healthcare has driven costs up and service down.

Yeah, that's what happens when the government gets involved. Happened with healthcare, happened with education, etc. You'd think the Left would have learned by now.

We were doing healthcare right. Then the government got involved.

On what planet would arguing against tax cuts be considered "fiscally conservative".