*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Jack Sawyer]

It is too expensive they said

There's no money for it they said

I really want to know how they will spin this, or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin. Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite

[oskar]

It is too expensive they said

There's no money for it they said

I really want to know how they will spin this, or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin. Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite

Yeah... but it still worked. Nothing matters except image to Trumps core base.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...r_30_trillion/
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...aaay_too_much/
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/3...icare-all-plan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...tudy-says.html
https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rillion-study/

[BananaStand]

It is too expensive they said

They were right

There's no money for it they said

Right again

I really want to know how they will spin this,

LOL, it's already soaking with "spin"

or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin

Why should it be remembered?

Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite

Only if you care about quality

This videos just steaming with resentment. Just jealous ranting about "executive compensation packages". It's the laziest, glibbest, most demagogue-esque argument you can make.

this is the kind of thinking that destroyed the soviet union. "oh look, that guy has money. He must be bad. Let's make him jobless and poor like us". Before long, everybody lives it total abject suffering. Like in Finland.

So the study says we'll save 2 trillion over 10 years. How many trillions will we save if we dropped all the bullshit regulations that came about over the last 10 years?

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs on providers and companies. They added 10's of trillions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

Serious question: How much does the study say that we will save if we slashed the government regulations preventing national exchanges, or allowed insurance companies to compete.

Find me that number. If it's less than the figures cited in Bernie's bitching above....then I'll be convinced this is a good idea.

lol....spin.

[Jack Sawyer]

They were right


Right again


LOL, it's already soaking with "spin"


Why should it be remembered?


Only if you care about quality

This videos just steaming with resentment. Just jealous ranting about "executive compensation packages". It's the laziest, glibbest, most demagogue-esque argument you can make.

this is the kind of thinking that destroyed the soviet union. "oh look, that guy has money. He must be bad. Let's make him jobless and poor like us". Before long, everybody lives it total abject suffering. Like in Finland.

So the study says we'll save 2 trillion over 10 years. How many trillions will we save if we dropped all the bullshit regulations that came about over the last 10 years?

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs providers and companies. They 10's of billions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

Serious question: How much does the study say that we will save if we slashed the government regulations preventing national exchanges, or allowed insurance companies to compete.

Dude, I'm starting to believe that your mind is about as dense as a neutron star. It's actually impressive.

Find me that number. If it's less than the figures cited in Bernie's bitching above....then I'll be convinced this is a good idea.

lol....spin.

That's the point. They found a number. A relevant one. One based in reality. And it was found by the rightest-wing of all right wing organizations. Oh the irony.

Anyway, that number is -2,000,000,000,000 over a period of 10 years.

You as a country SAVE 2,000,000,000,000 over that period. If you just continue with your course as is, you will save 0 over that period.

[BananaStand]

If you just continue with your course as is, you will save 0 over that period.

Are those the only two options? Stay the course as is, or have a massive government takeover of a private industry?

No other alternatives?

Demagogue

[Jack Sawyer]

Are those the only two options? Stay the course as is, or have a massive government takeover of a private industry?

No other alternatives?

Demagogue

The alternative is 2 trillion, TRILLION, dollars saved.

Your mental density prevents you from seeing this quite clear point.

[BananaStand]

The alternative is 2 trillion, TRILLION, dollars saved.

Your mental density prevents you from seeing this quite clear point.

Mental density??? Quite clear point???

Here's something that should be quite clear. Dems made these promises 10 years ago too. They broke those promises and jacked up prices by almost half. If you believe that it will be different this time, then you're mentally dense.

Here's something that should be quite clear. Even if it's true that Medicare-for-all (heretofore "MFA") would save $2T, why is that good? What if we could do something else that could save $5T? Only someone mentally dense wouldn't explore other options.

Heres's something that should be quite clear. The government regulations increased the cost of healthcare by $915B per year over the last 10 years. If we undid that, we'd save NINE TRILLION over ten years. You'd have to be mentally dense to think that Two trillion is better than 9 trillion. Even if governtment regulation is only *half* the problem...that's still FOUR FUCKING TRILLION. A person freed from mental density can see that four, is more than two. Is that not quite clear to anyone?

Here's something that should be quite clear. Socialized medicine reduces the quality of care. Is that worth $2 trillion? I'm wondering what kind of mental density disorder a person might have to have in order to believe that there is a way to just *get* two trillion dollars without any kind of tradeoff, sacrifice, or consequence.

[Jack Sawyer]

Dems made these promises 10 years ago too.

Once your mental density allows you to understand that the whole point is that it's not just the dems making promises right now, we can continue this fruitless discussion

[Jack Sawyer]

Here's something that should be quite clear. Even if it's true that Medicare-for-all (heretofore "MFA") would save $2T, why is that good? What if we could do something else that could save $5T? Only someone mentally dense wouldn't explore other options.

Heres's something that should be quite clear. The government regulations increased the cost of healthcare by $915B per year over the last 10 years. If we undid that, we'd save NINE TRILLION over ten years. You'd have to be mentally dense to think that Two trillion is better than 9 trillion. Even if governtment regulation is only *half* the problem...that's still FOUR FUCKING TRILLION. A person freed from mental density can see that four, is more than two. Is that not quite clear to anyone?

Do you have a source for your information?

[Jack Sawyer]

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs on providers and companies. They added 10's of trillions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

I see you've never heard about lobbyists. The government just did all that shit on its own, according to you. This is probably beneath your high IQ.

Not 10's of billions. 2000 billions to be exact. Which is what proponents of healthcare reform in the US have been saying all along. Universal healthcare will save money. Now the rightest wing of all right wing organizations did a study to prove them all wrong, yet came to the exact same conclusion.

It's not the government that said this, High IQ Banana. It's the Koch Bros' Mercatus Institute that did.

Not denying that. What's your point?

You do realize that it's a private study that had that conclusion right? The conclusion proponents have been claiming all along? Or maybe not.

Your government seems to be aligned with your facts-be-damned, my-ideology-above-reality way of thinking, which, SHOCKER, is in the minority

Even on FOX & MFING FRIENDS of all places

[BananaStand]

Your government seems to be aligned with your facts-be-damned, my-ideology-above-reality way of thinking, which, SHOCKER, is in the minority

what facts am I damning?

I haven't disputed anything you've said. Are you dense?

I've challenged to to prove that MFA is the BEST solution. Obviously your mind is too dense to produce an answer. It's jammed in there, stuck within the densely packed liberal vitriol that you continuously suck out of Cenk Uygur's urethra.

If you have a problem with my math, say so. Your vague chortles only prove that the math checks out. You can't assail the FACTS, so you're relying on your demagogue rhetoric of "If the Koch brothers say it, how can you deny it?" Even though NO ONE IS DENYING THE STUDY. But maybe you're too dense to realize that. In fact, I'm sure that's the case because you just doubled down with "FOX poll says people like MFA"

Polls can suck my balls. Most people like the idea of free college too, and Universal Basic Income. That doesn't mean they're good ideas.