I don't think we're addressing the same concerns

No but we haven't had real discussions about quality and it's the otherside of the coin in regards to health insurance.

I doubt anyone's expecting god damn star trek med bay accomodations. People just want to be able to go to the god damn doctor without risking financial ruin. And no, simply sitting there and saying "thats never happened to me" is not an acceptable response.

I've never had a tree fall on my house, I still see the merit of having insurance for it.

I moved to concierge recently. Here's what I expect A doctor whenever I need a doctor. A procedure whenever I need one. If I change my diet/ exercise routine I want new blood work. I do not want to wait on anything health related. Not having this is a worst case scenario.

Outside moral outrage there is no actual defense of medicare for all.

America isnt Europe, our culture is different our population is titanic comparatively speaking, and the US subsidizes Europes defense. Without us their socialized medicine fails.

Futhermore I am against forced abortions and state sanctioned murder of children.

The state can keep its filthy hands off my healthcare thank you

Joker you need to stop strawmanning, no one said that every one having ins is the worst case scenario. What was said was, medicare is actually awful not only in wait times but also in its reimbursement rates to hospitals. This is not even to mention the feds can legally negotiate or control prices, do you really want to write a blank check to the pharma companies?

>forced abortions
and just like that you're in no position to cry "strawman"

literally fucking made up

and yes, he clarified his statement already

An appeal court in britain literally had to stop a forced abortion my dude get fucked
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/catholic-church-hits-out-at-court-over-abortion-ruling

>britain
okie dokie, good for them, take it to UK pol

also have fun connecting that to the occurance of central health insurance option

emphasis on "option"

"if we let people choose to have the state insure, something something forced abortions."

go ahead and call it a strawman, but thats how fantastically non-sequitor that comment was

Half of what you have been arguing is that western countries all have socialized meducine but us, then got pissy when someone called it barbaric

So when I provide an example of barbarity in one of those western countries you plug your ears and say "not relevant"

Weak sauce man

untrue, I made no reference to other countries. I refuted the claim that they were "primitive" for doing so, but thats it

and no, you have yet to justify bringing up an occurance of a forced abortion and proving its a result of central health insurance

It seems I got that part mixed up with someone else I apologize

Really tho?

"Outside moral outrage there is no actual defense of medicare for all."
It's cheaper for the average consumer. It also standardizes a level of care across the board.

yes, really

"Medicare for all" also includes regulation of big pharma

Though, that can be done without "Medicare for all"

The government forcing someone to have an abortion in a government run healthcare system isnt a result of that government run system?

Doesntmakesensetomebutokaybro

Weez by what metric are you determining it is cheaper?

what part of "option" is not getting through to you?

Fiscal cost per capita.

In your current system, larger groups get cheaper rates for insurance.

A country is THE largest group.

How do you square that with the previously mentioned cdc report?

Got a link for that?

5 trillion doesnt sound cheap to me

I'll have a read through it

Here's something for you to have a look at, while I read that report