Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[Inisfallen]

Yeah, I know, too much information. Take it one sentence at a time.

Wow, spectacular rudeness. I don’t think rudeness has much value as a debating technique, since it’s so rarely persuasive (although admittedly it’s great for scoring points with the peanut gallery). But maybe that’s just me.

In any event, I can’t take this whole topic seriously any more. I get it. I am, in fact (although you obviously disagree) intelligent enough to understand what you’re saying. I completely grasp it, and I know what the end game is.

I’m just not that interested anymore. Like I said, I just can’t take it all that seriously.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Government funded healthcare is not strict control of the economy

No. Only 1/6 of it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Government funded healthcare is not strict control of the economy

No. Only 1/6 of it.

Medicare is government funded, yet doctors still operate independently. Government did not “take control” of the means of production as in classical socialism. If you are against Medicare for all because it is socialism, then you should also oppose Medicare for some because that would still be socialism. Yet very few Republicans or Trumpians are against Medicare. So healthcare proposals by Sanders, Gillum, and Ocasio-Cortez differ from Republicans only in degree, not in principle.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

yet doctors still operate independently.

Very, very few doctors are independent. The government takeover of healthcare, through regulations and payment ayatems, have forced physicians to work for corporations.

 

[dvdjs]

I’ll play.

Are you denying that there exists more racial animosity now than before Obama’s term as president?

Hard to say. I think that there more has risen to the surface - Republican officials in Indiana and Pennsylvania, for example.

Are you arguing that Gillum’s characterizing of DeSantis’ words as ‘racist’ doesn’t create more racial animosity?

Why would it create more? BTW, is the a hypothetical or are you claiming that Gillum made such a statement? According to the OP:

“Was that racist or a figment of speech?” Smith asked, referring to DeSantis’ comment.
Gillum didn’t answer the specific question, instead responding, “I’m not going to get down in the gutter with DeSantis and Trump. There’s enough of that going on.”

Are you denying that universities have become predominantly leftist and socialist to the point that they ban anyone with a different perspective from speaking on their campuses?

Of course. Moreover I deny pizzagate.

Are you denying that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez always seem to point at some identifiable group – the rich, privileged whites, etc.) in order to scapegoat that group to their target audience?

Not that I have heard.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How old is Medicare now? About 50 years? Like social security retirement, nobody knew the cost of it when it was established. Indeed, it was quite low compared to today. And there have been “add-ons” like Part D and Medicare Advantage. Medicare was designed for old people who couldn’t afford healthcare, and it was assumed few would be able. Medicare is also “discounted” well below “reasonable and necessary” that providers charge. So now everybody will get approximately a 33% discount? How is that going to work?

But it’s a big mistake to think the government doesn’t control medical care in this country. All pricing is based on Medicare and “standard of care” is as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How old is Medicare now? About 50 years? Like social security retirement, nobody knew the cost of it when it was established. Indeed, it was quite low compared to today. And there have been “add-ons” like Part D and Medicare Advantage. Medicare was designed for old people who couldn’t afford healthcare, and it was assumed few would be able. Medicare is also “discounted” well below “reasonable and necessary” that providers charge. So now everybody will get approximately a 33% discount? How is that going to work?

But it’s a big mistake to think the government doesn’t control medical care in this country. All pricing is based on Medicare and “standard of care” is as well.

See, now you are addressing Medicare on its merits (or lack of them), which is the right way to do it. You had to dive into the particulars of the plan. You could not dismiss Medicare simply on the basis of generalities like “Any government funded health plan is essentially control over a major sector of the economy and hence is socialism.” So please do the same with plans proposed by Sanders, Gillum, and Ocasio-Cortez. Dive into the particulars of their plans and point out what you think is wrong with them.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Yeah, I know, too much information. Take it one sentence at a time.

Wow, spectacular rudeness. I don’t think rudeness has much value as a debating technique, since it’s so rarely persuasive (although admittedly it’s great for scoring points with the peanut gallery). But maybe that’s just me.

In any event, I can’t take this whole topic seriously any more. I get it. I am, in fact (although you obviously disagree) intelligent enough to understand what you’re saying. I completely grasp it, and I know what the end game is.

I’m just not that interested anymore. Like I said, I just can’t take it all that seriously.

Yeah, I get it. It is either too much information (everything but the kitchen sink,) or you can’t take it seriously when it’s honed to a pointed critique.

Makes it quite easy to enshrine your own opinions in an impenetrable and cozy shroud of security when anyone who dares to challenge those opinions is being “spectacularly rude,” when, in fact, I was merely being provoking.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I do not oppose Medicare for the elderly, and never did. If you want to argue about that, go find someone who opposes it. Stinkcat, for example, comes to mind.

I do think there are some serious flaws in it, one of which is the “discounted” nature of reimbursement, combined with the “not for profit” requirement of the providers. Another is that is has now come to encourage “medicine by computer program”.

I have said nothing about Sanders, Gillum’s or Cortez’ plans. I believe you’re thinking of someone else.

 

[Inisfallen]

when it’s honed to a pointed critique.

Is that what it was?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have said nothing about Sanders, Gillum’s or Cortez’ plans. I believe you’re thinking of someone else.

I direct your attention to my post #433, which you responded to. It was clearly about the new health plans. Then my post #446 was also about the proposals of Sanders, Gillum, and Ocasio-Cortez and you responded to that. If your responses had nothing to do with criticisms of their plans, then why are you responding to posts about them?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Are you denying that universities have become predominantly leftist and socialist to the point that they ban anyone with a different perspective from speaking on their campuses?

Of course. Moreover I deny pizzagate.

So, apparently, you are about as adept with logical equivalencies as @InisFallen, who thinks socialism equates to Nazism?

The fact that Ben Shapiro, a practicing Jew, has been banned from speaking at a number of universities over the past few years should, then be understood (at least by Inisfallen) to indicate that not just socialists but Nazis have taken over at least some college campuses, given his/her equating of Nazism with socialism.

Funny how the equivalence is applied so inconsistently.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3816/leftist-fascists-take-over-college-campuses-ben-shapiro

What the leftist predominance on college campuses has to do with pizzagate, in your mind, completely escapes me.

It does, however, suggest a discredit and dismiss tactic on your part.

You can explain the attempt at disparagement by association if you wish, but I suggest you won’t come out looking very good in the process.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

when it’s honed to a pointed critique.

Is that what it was?

Still baffled?

That’s okay, the point was still made.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe if you paid attention to what I actually said instead of what you want to argue about, you would realize I never mentioned any of those people at all or their plans. In your post 430 you were talking about an abstract principle; whether government funded healthcare is socialism or not. In your later post, you told me that I “should oppose” Medicare for anyone at all. I don’t, and never have. That was just shooting at a straw man and pretending it was me.

 

[HarryStotle]

Ridgerunner:

How old is Medicare now? About 50 years? Like social security retirement, nobody knew the cost of it when it was established. Indeed, it was quite low compared to today. And there have been “add-ons” like Part D and Medicare Advantage. Medicare was designed for old people who couldn’t afford healthcare, and it was assumed few would be able. Medicare is also “discounted” well below “reasonable and necessary” that providers charge. So now everybody will get approximately a 33% discount? How is that going to work?

But it’s a big mistake to think the government doesn’t control medical care in this country. All pricing is based on Medicare and “standard of care” is as well.

See, now you are addressing Medicare on its merits (or lack of them), which is the right way to do it. You had to dive into the particulars of the plan. You could not dismiss Medicare simply on the basis of generalities like “Any government funded health plan is essentially control over a major sector of the economy and hence is socialism.” So please do the same with plans proposed by Sanders, Gillum, and Ocasio-Cortez. Dive into the particulars of their plans and point out what you think is wrong with them.

Admittedly, not being American, I am no expert on “the particulars,” but wasn’t @Ridgerunner doing just that when he asked…

So now everybody will get approximately a 33% discount? How is that going to work?

So, instead of diving deep with Ridgerunner, you opted to sidestep, go wide, and stay shallow?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Maybe if you paid attention to what I actually said instead of what you want to argue about, you would realize I never mentioned any of those people at all or their plans. In your post 430 you were talking about an abstract principle; whether government funded healthcare is socialism or not. In your later post, you told me that I “should oppose” Medicare for anyone at all. I don’t, and never have. That was just shooting at a straw man and pretending it was me.

So, you are OK with Sanders’ health care plan then?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Ridgerunner:

How old is Medicare now? About 50 years? Like social security retirement, nobody knew the cost of it when it was established. Indeed, it was quite low compared to today. And there have been “add-ons” like Part D and Medicare Advantage. Medicare was designed for old people who couldn’t afford healthcare, and it was assumed few would be able. Medicare is also “discounted” well below “reasonable and necessary” that providers charge. So now everybody will get approximately a 33% discount? How is that going to work?

But it’s a big mistake to think the government doesn’t control medical care in this country. All pricing is based on Medicare and “standard of care” is as well.

See, now you are addressing Medicare on its merits (or lack of them), which is the right way to do it. You had to dive into the particulars of the plan. You could not dismiss Medicare simply on the basis of generalities like “Any government funded health plan is essentially control over a major sector of the economy and hence is socialism.” So please do the same with plans proposed by Sanders, Gillum, and Ocasio-Cortez. Dive into the particulars of their plans and point out what you think is wrong with them.

Admittedly, not being American, I am no expert on “the particulars,” but wasn’t @Ridgerunner doing just that when he asked…

Yes, and I complimented him on addressing the particulars of Medicare. But I was talking about the “democratic socialists” in the news today, and I mistakenly thought Ridgerunner was too. So that is why I invited him to do the same with those plans that I though he was criticizing with generalities.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, you are OK with Sanders’ health care plan then?

I’m not familiar with it, and have no opinion about it. I will say that it’s widely held that Medicare is on the verge of going broke. If so, then expanding it (if that’s what Sanders wants) seems ill-advised.

Speaking generally, and without reference to Sanders, Gillum, or Cortez, I believe, and have often expressed, that the kind of healthcare Americans consider appropriate is a scarce resource and is probably not affordable without massive tax increases and perhaps not even then.

 

[dvdjs]

at a number of universities

Let’s begin here:
“a number of universities” =/= “universities”.
The we can go into the substance of whether and why any universities banned Shapiro.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

at a number of universities

Let’s begin here:
“a number of universities” =/= “universities”.
The we can go into the substance of whether and why any universities banned Shapiro.

It hasn’t been just Shapiro who has been banned, many conservative speakers have been from a large number of universities.

Your strategy, I can tell, is to force me to come up with a large number of instances of the same and then you will continue to insist it isn’t all universities.

What number of universities would you accept as making the issue of banning conservative speech a serious problem? A third? A half? 90%?

Let’s at least be up front with where you stand regarding when something becomes a problem.

In the meantime, those who don’t wish to dive into that rabbit hole, could just start here with looking down a tunnel into the relatively near future:

Those who wish to tout the direction that Canada is moving regarding its social policies ought to at least be willing to look at the direction Canada has moved regarding threatening free speech.

Recently, the Supreme Court threatened Trinity Western with removal of its authority to train lawyers on the grounds that its Christian views on family were impediments to its ability to train lawyers.