when it doesn't

and if by "the things you spoke of" you mean medicare for all, it's literally cheaper than the current system, so it would in fact replace the medicare/medicaid areas with a smaller piece of the pie

21% has to do with the fact that the USA has no money left to implement any new stuff. Do you think Medicare for all is gonna be free to get going?

it's cheaper than the current system so effectively free

The startup cost of implementing an entire new system, not to mention the pay cut that all physicians will experience, job losses, and the fact that we just dont have enough doctors to support such a system, is gonna be extremely expensive

you do have enough doctors

why do you think theyll get a pay cut

all the profits go to the shareholders

No one is gonna wanna work the same job for less money

Especially in the health field where you're a playing a pivotal role

And you're doing hard work everyday with people

you know what, even if it was true that doctors will be paid less, they are already paid very well. i'm fine with a cut if it means everyone in the country gets their treatment

price worth paying

Like I said, no one is going to want to perform the same job for less money. The salary cut isnt gonna be small, its gonna be immense

source?

Educateyourself, I dont think this conversation is going anywhere and I'm not going to spoon feed articles to you just so you can sit from your couch and nitpick information out

lmfao no source spotted

source: your ass

Lmfao no research skills

Hahahahahahahh

You're so dense

its not my job to research your baseless arguments

I've proved everything I've said so far..

no you haven't

you were wrong about 7% leftover

But people like you dont accept fact

you're completely unsourced about an IMMENSE pay cut

how can you say youve proved it

you're just saying shit

Nope

I dont just say shit

thats all youve done so far no sources

Lol

have you heard of the burden of proof?

You sit here in this chat and say things that I am 100% sure you know nothing about, then you ask people who bother researching to pull up articles. Then you nitpick bits of information and disregard the entire article (which btw I dont think you read) and then the cycle starts all over again with a new person. This is a predictable method of "arguing" that fools the person you're talking to into continuously giving you sources but at the end of the day you're just taking them for a spin. You know you're not here to change your mind-- you're here to antagonize people. So no, I am not giving you sources because I'm not looking for your approval. The truth is the truth and your insignificant socialist opinion doesnt change the facts that are out there.

you took that long to write that

i was hoping for an actual intelligent post after all the buildup

you should realise why people ask for sources in a debate

its because sources provide evidence and reason, i'm not sure how familiar you are with these concepts

<:TrumpKiss:624681485370392577>

it stops a debate becoming a mud-slinging contest, like you're trying to turn it into.