"Your playing burden of proof games. Your right unless the other side can prove your wrong. That's unreasonable."
Uh Tim, you are making some very specific claims. And they have some really important ramifications. To say "it is unfair to ask for proof" is sort of dis-ingenuousness. Not to mention pretty strange.
"There is no way to prove either side of this"
Tim, there are ways to get some pretty good ideas. It is a fact that prior to Medicare, elders found it almost impossible to get health insurance at any price. Period. Full stop. If you want to say things are different now, you have to come up with some sort of proof. You also want to claim that, somehow, by pushing elders into the private market it will cut costs. Yet you just wave your hands about vague theories from other areas of the economy and assume they apply. And then claim it is unfair to ask for proof that your theories apply.
The fact of the matter is your method has been tried. It resulted in many elders having to choose between food and medical care. Since then, costs of medical care have gone up. There are many reasons why that is true, and Medicare isn't one of them. If you think so, it is up to you to provide the proof. That is just how these things work.
"Its also irrelevant to the question at hand, but nice try."
Not at all, Tim. It is the net effect of what will happen. The brutal fact of the matter is that, under Ryan's plan, there will be many elders who won't be able to afford the healthcare they need. Not if they want to eat or living in cardboard boxes. Maybe not even then. Now those with children who are willing to help or enough savings, they have a chance. But is bankrupting or severely damaging the economics of those people a good choice? Is making them choose between grandma and sending their kids to college something this country really needs?
Why you find Dicksonian London so attractive totally escapes me. |
