The Conservatives have a Healthcare Plan

johnmarc · Post by **johnmarc** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:10 am

dianaiad wrote:

johnmarc wrote:Had the conservative party spent as much time crafting a competing healthcare plan as they have spent attempting to destroy this one, I, for one, would be more sympathetic.
Actually, they did, more than one. However, they were not allowed to give any input. What they said was ignored, stamped down, ridiculed....(shrug) and another irony is that the liberals are now commenting about the lack of conservative input, rather like the guy who took his hearing aids out so that he could shut out the noise complaining that nobody told him anything.

The Democrats don't like Obamacare any more than the Republicans. Obamacare is a Republican plan---essentially vouchers of government subsides to purchase insurance in the (for profit) market place. Democrats wanted 'Medicare for All'. However, it seems that Democrats at least respect the notion that Obamacare (or almost anything else) is better than the previous status quo.

But repeatedly, we are told that Republicans have (and have had) a different and better plan. I have looked and I have listened, but have never found the plan.

What is it? (some specifics here would be nice)

The Me's · Post by **The Me's** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:06 pm

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Your evidence is so bad you should be attacking it.

For the love of cucumbers, Reuters was caught photo-shopping pictures of Lebanon that made people hate Jews. Not only did they doctor the photos, they doctored them badly.

Yes, I question your evidence.

At least try to get something from the medical industry.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:10 pm

considering you don't have an evidence supported position I just have to disregard anything you have to say as trolling

The Me's · Post by **The Me's** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:22 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: considering you don't have an evidence supported position I just have to disregard anything you have to say as trolling

You made the claim, not me.

I have no responsibility to present evidence.

(And the throwing out the old trolling accusation is just lame.)

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:32 pm

[Replying to post 63 by The Me's]

you made a claim that subsidies are the leading cause of health care costs.

then a sub claim

medical grants for research cause an increase in the cost of cancer treatment

you failed to support either claim.

until you do I have to disregard anything you say as argumentative trolling.

The Me's · Post by **The Me's** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:10 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 63 by The Me's]

you made a claim that subsidies are the leading cause of health care costs.

I also posted evidence of that claim.

If that's how you identify a troll, then I'm obviously guilty.

(Don't you ever get tired of playing immature games of bait and switch? If you don't like my point of view, just move on. It's wrong for you to claim that I didn't not support my claim. If you need a link to it, just ask.)

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:22 pm

[Replying to post 65 by The Me's]

Like I pointed out your evidence is unrelated to the subject it is like me saying sodium is the leading cause for sweetness in apples.

evidence.

Salt has sodium and gains its flavor from sodium

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:07 pm

[Replying to The Me's]

I note you did not provide any evidence for your claims regarding Microsoft Stock prices.

I have been trying to help you out, but so far with no success.

In fact, over the last 10 years, MS stock has never even reached $40 per share.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ ... CDkQ2AEwAA

If you go all the way back to the year 2000 (you had said about six years ago), the stock was trading at close to $60. However, that was when the dot-com bubble burst, and nearly all technology stocks took a tumble.

See this link for history on the NASDAQ, which is a technology heavy index.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nasdaq2.png

Perhaps you should clarify your claim. What is the evidence for this? Are you referring to a "stock loan rebate?"

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sto ... rebate.asp

Can you document if and when MS offered said rebate?

Regardless of whether the rebate you claim was offered or not, the $30 drop you site is not document.

The largest percentage drop in MS stock this century was 12.2%, and it occurred just last year.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/19/as-sha ... ince-2000/

Even if MS stock was trading at $59, even a 20% drop would only be down to $47.

The previous record from the year 2000 was 15.6%, and that seemed to have nothing to do with any sort of rebate.

https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2892284

Shares of Microsoft dropped 11.4 percent today, representing the biggest single-day drop in over 13 years. The last time it occurred was on April 24, 2000, when shares plunged 15.6 percent as the world's largest software company locked itself in an antitrust dispute with the U.S. government. Since then, Microsoft has never experienced such a shelling, until today that is. This came after the software company posted dismal quarterly results due to weak demand for its latest Windows system and poor sales of its Surface tablet.

So, not only do you seem to have no evidence for your claim, there is evidence against your claim. This on top of the previous comments by Daniel that your claim is irrelevant to the issue of debate.

Perhaps you should retract and try again.

The Me's · Post by **The Me's** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:00 am

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Denial of evidence leads to intellectual dysfunction.

No wonder you rely on Wikipedia.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:26 pm

[Replying to post 67 by The Me's]

Really I am just waiting on your supporting data. If you can't provide that I don't see how we can continue this discussion. Especially since you continually cannot resist the urge to insult someone.

It seems like the definition you gave for why you call yourself the me's is a description of your own self. You are just projecting that onto others but really you dislike those traits that you exhibit yourself.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:27 pm

The Me's wrote: [Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Denial of evidence leads to intellectual dysfunction.

No wonder you rely on Wikipedia.

Moderator Warning

Do not make personal comments about the posters. If you have a point to make, make it about what is written, not about the writer.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.