The article I linked to was during the Obama administration, but I suppose he’s not responsible.
Which I’ll try to keep in mind for the next 8 years 
Me thinks he is learning the difference between statistical correlation and statistical causation 
https://cdn-business.discourse.org/uploads/analyticsvidhya/132/176854dcc0230dc1.png
Let’s see - this guy is from an elite group of politicians who decided they did NOT want Obamacare for themselves, but were willing to inflict it on the rest of the country?
A pox on them all. There are a lot of people that will choose NOT to be on the new program - their choice.
Or can’t afford to be, on the new program. Again, their choice 
Nice eye roll, Randy. Such thoughtfulness. You’re welcome.
Well, just vote the bum out of office. Then we can maybe elect Jonathan Gruber, an architect of the ACA who was famously caught on tape saying that it’s only because Americans are stupid, that the ACA could actually be passed.
Or re-elect Obama, who will once again state that we can keep our insurance and our doctors.
Or maybe he could kick even more millions of people off of their chosen health plan, and force them to a more expensive program with less coverage, i.e. ACA.
Maybe the ACA is so good that the Louisiana PUrchase was not necessary. And so good that the entire government and all the government employees would be so happy to join up, and drop the cadillac plans?
Maybe we can hire more Navigators, who received about 16 hours training on the most elaborate ever misconceived, to guide us through the process? At about $50 an hour for what were mostly felons, ex-cons, etc. Nice move.
Or maybe use the single payer system known as the Veterans Administration, that well-oiled example of what government can do when it puts its mind to it - as an example?
The point is not that you are so biased that you cannot think straight - - but that you don’t have ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE US GOVERNMENT CAN RUN ANYTHING WELL AND EFFICIENTLY.
And have these questions been answered yet?
I picked these from a much longer list.
-
Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word “care” for the word “insurance?” it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.
-
No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?
-
According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, “While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States.” Given how many lives – in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats’ bill improve or impair Americans’ health?
-
Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a “public option”? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a “public option” given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others’ money – i.e., taxes?
-
Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven’t the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?
-
Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn’t any meaningful “reform” of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?
-
Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn’t the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?
-
Contrary to the assertion of President Obama – “we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren’t any healthier for it” – we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.
Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?
http://rs246.pbsrc.com/albums/gg103/im-on-to-you/Emoticons%205/glock836_roll_eyes.gif~c200
Actually, Dave, the government can run medicare advantage programs well. Why? Because they allow the insurance companies to manage them. I think it was Geoffrey, I believe. Who said the biggest problem with our high medical costs, is administration costs. And he supplied quality articles - to prove it. Let the insurance companies administer it…the government rate the insurance companies success (like Medicare does now)…and the US government handle all the centralized stuff.
Then it raises the BIG question. Why does the US government fail miserably…but a country like Singapore - does well? And they are rated #1 in health care, by the World Health Organization?
Oh, yes. Least I forget
Well then, turns out we agree on one little thing, at least. The gov’t is most effective when it stays out of our way.
For my money, Gene Wilder is the clear winner.
And why is Gene Wilder the clear winner?
Actually, I stand somewhere in-between author Ayn Rand and Pope Francis. I just need to figure out, the scale direction and percentage.
http://rs284.pbsrc.com/albums/ll17/mcagus/Smileys/smilies__imessenger_outros_125.gif~c200
I will never believe that Ayn Rand had ever rolled her eyes. The Pope, maybe.
And now for a word from our sponsor
Anyone can link to articles.
Haven’t you been doing the same thing, Dave? By linking to articles, and quoting “experts” - giving their “expert opinions” you found? Rather than provide statistical data, to back certain claims?
And now an expert opinion, on the “expert” opinions
P.S. Just so we are clear. The Scarecrow’s commentary does NOT apply, to those supplying links to - or quoting - “experts with opinions”.
that’s the VERY thing you do Dave… hello pot this is kettle
“Well, anyone can point, to a bunch of articles. I can find articles to prove that aliens exist, the earth is flat, etc. And some are quite impressive, to boot” - Randy, earlier in this post.
Davo, qaz, Fool - I KNOW THAT!! Geez, wake up! I was quoting Randy from an earlier post, dissing me for pointing out articles. So when YOU guys do the same thing, it was tit for tat.
Too easy. You were at least entertaining me for a while.
NO really, you 3 are entertaining! And I thank you for it - basically, you’ve proven me correct, at least to my satisfaction.
What I look for is this. How do we solve the healthcare crisis - for example? Well, someone might say. Let’s look at the Singapore model. Which is number one, as rated by the World Health Organization. And Singapore is basically, a successful capitalist country (as far as I have read and heard). Then someone can point to a bunch of facts, figures, data and statistics, to back their claim. Like, how does the W.H.O. rate healthcare quality in different countries? How does Medicare rate certain Insurance supplement and Advantage plans?
Or someone says Obamacare is a good, health care model. Or Trumpcare is a good, health care model.
Fine. I’ll take either position as a hypothesis. Now provide me with some facts, figures, data and statistics, to back this claim.
Or you say the US government can’t do anything right. Why? Tell me why?
Like this YouTube video. It’s very convincing. It gives me a bunch of facts and data - to contemplate. But I’m not quite ready, to buy into the earth being flat.
You’re right Randy. BUT - getting to the actual fact is well-nigh impossible; the narrative is considered to be the truth, not the facts. As you have pointed out, also, different facts are met with opposing facts, and anything can be ‘proven’ by finding yet another source of ‘facts’.
Worst of all - everything is politics, all the time. And PC is the opium of the people, and the political elite are the pushers.
The following is from a Book Review by Angelo M. Codevilla
The Rise of Political Correctness
“The problem, of course, will be that the very idea of persuasion by “reasoned response” is itself an oppressive cultural artifact.”
“Unfortunately, it is easier for
anyone who dislikes a court’s or an official’s unlawful
act to counter it with another unlawful
one than to draw all parties back to the foundation
of truth.”
That is because a majority of Americans—
realizing that the Constitution and the laws
have ceased to protect them from unending
injuries to their way of life; aggravated by being
insulted as “irredemable” and “deplorable”
racists, sexists, etc.; eager for relief and, yes,
for payback with interest; knowing that the
ruling class is closed to argument from those
it considers its inferiors—have no option but
to turn the tables in the hope that, suffering
the same kind of insulting oppression, the ruling
class might learn the value of treating others
as they themselves like to be treated. More
likely, doing this would be one more turn in
the spiral of reprisals typical of revolutions.
And yet, there seems no way of avoiding this.
What is to be done with a political system
in which no one any longer believes? This is a
revolutionary question because America’s ruling
class largely destroyed, along with its own
credibility, the respect for truth."