2024 Field

Garmel said:
National healthcare IS universal healthcare. They're synonyms. You can make the call this is a slippery slope toward that but something that is government mandated doesn't make it national healthcare anymore than it being universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

They are not synonymous. Free federally covered IVF treatments is national healthcare, which is a subset of free universal healthcare, which is where all healthcare is federally covered.
 
chop2chip said:
They are not synonymous. Free federally covered IVF treatments is national healthcare, which is a subset of free universal healthcare, which is where all healthcare is federally covered.
Click to expand...

National healthcare is basically universal. If you google the definition of national healthcare it will take you straight to universal healthcare. It IS the same thing.
 
"Does the US have national healthcare?

"There is no nationwide system of government-owned medical facilities open to the general public but there are local government-owned medical facilities open to the general public."
 
Garmel said:
National healthcare is basically universal. If you google the definition of national healthcare it will take you straight to universal healthcare. It IS the same thing.
Click to expand...

You’re arguing semantics. You can change the labels all you want but you’re not addressing the substance of my point at all.
 
Garmel said:
National healthcare is basically universal. If you google the definition of national healthcare it will take you straight to universal healthcare. It IS the same thing.
Click to expand...

You are arguing semantics about word definitions at this point

Trump proposed a very expensive socialized natuonal healthcare program. Call it whatever you want.

Do you disagree?
 
sturg33 said:
You are arguing semantics about word definitions at this point

Trump proposed a very expensive socialized natuonal healthcare program. Call it whatever you want.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I guess using right definition is now called arguing semantics.

Yes, calling it a health program is the correct term.
 
Garmel said:
I guess using right definition is now called arguing semantics.

Yes, calling it a health program is the correct term.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting if I simply said "national health program" instead of "national healthcare," I would have avoided the accusations of being mentally unstable, a stupid ass, and non substantive ranting?
 
sturg33 said:
Are you suggesting if I simply said "national health program" instead of "national healthcare," I would have avoided the accusations of being mentally unstable, a stupid ass, and non substantive ranting?
Click to expand...

Did I hurt your little fee-fees? I'm just treating you the way you treat others on here.
 
Garmel said:
Did I hurt your little fee-fees? I'm just treating you the way you treat others on here.
Click to expand...

No I'm actually laughing that we've gotten to the point where you being cornered into admitting your hissy fit was based on purely semantic definition of essentially the same thing.

Hopefully you're embarrassed
 
sturg33 said:
No I'm actually laughing that we've gotten to the point where you being cornered into admitting your hissy fit was based on purely semantic definition of essentially the same thing.

Hopefully you're embarrassed
Click to expand...

You assumed that's what I was saying?

I'm just saying you should quit being thin-skinned the way you treat others when it's given back.

And no, it's not the same thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay garmel - I changed the wording of my post to meet your definitional requirements. Let me know if you have any more edits I can address before you decide to engage in a substantive conversation.

I have a lot of sympathy for those ready to have kids but can’t get pregnant. We have a family member in that situation who couldn’t afford IVF, so we all chipped in to help pay for the treatment. I recognize there are some who would like IVF but don’t have a support network to help them pay for IVF treatments. It feels bad denying them the ability to birth children.

It IS a taxpayer funded national healthcare program and it is a slippery slope argument towards free universal healthcare. Healthcare isn’t a luxury good. There’s always going to be a sympathetic argument to cover every type of healthcare treatment.

The only sustainable solution for universal healthcare is if technology advances to a point where the cost of care is small.
Click to expand...
 
Garmel said:
Nope
Click to expand...

This is the danger of Trump.

He can do any socialist thing he wants and his cult will be like "it's not national healthcare! It's a national health program! It's good policy, actually!"

Same exact thing happened - with you - about his call for price controls, where you dutifully spent pages explaining why it's not exactly what it is, and, actually, why it's good

Only Trump can move this country this far left so easily
 
sturg33 said:
This is the danger of Trump.

He can do any socialist thing he wants and his cult will be like "it's not national healthcare! It's a national health program! It's good policy, actually!"

Same exact thing happened - with you - about his call for price controls, where you dutifully spent pages explaining why it's not exactly what it is, and, actually, why it's good

Only Trump can move this country this far left so easily
Click to expand...

The danger of voting for someone with no PRINCIPLES

Who knows what he’ll come up with next as he continues desperately flailing

Wants to double down on the worst aspects of his first term, undo some of his greatest successes, and introduce a host of new terrible policies that would be right at home in his opponent’s platform. And that’s just in the past couple of weeks. Should be fun to see what he has in store for us all in October.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sturg33 said:
This is the danger of Trump.

He can do any socialist thing he wants and his cult will be like "it's not national healthcare! It's a national health program! It's good policy, actually!"

Same exact thing happened - with you - about his call for price controls, where you dutifully spent pages explaining why it's not exactly what it is, and, actually, why it's good

Only Trump can move this country this far left so easily
Click to expand...

I know it's hard to believe, gents but the addition or omission of a word changes the meaning of a term. Can't handle being corrected? Tough ****.

I don't agree with his feelings on the IVF because of the costs but I do agree with some having a limit on credit card interest. Yes, I can find places on the net who agree with me that limits on interest are not considered price control.

You think you have the all of the answers but you really don't know ****.

When you think IVF or caps on CC interest are going to be as damaging to this country as what Kamala is going to do then you are delusional.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Republican leaning voters must be arguing like this all over the country. Will it get even worse after Nov 5?
 
Garmel said:
I know it's hard to believe, gents but the addition or omission of a word changes the meaning of a term. Can't handle being corrected? Tough ****.

I don't agree with his feelings on the IVF because of the costs but I do agree with some having a limit on credit card interest. Yes, I can find places on the net who agree with me that limits on interest are not considered price control.

You think you have the all of the answers but you really don't know ****.

When you think IVF or caps on CC interest are going to be as damaging to this country as what Kamala is going to do then you are delusional.
Click to expand...

You don’t think that letting the government control credit card interest sets a bad precedent? Why would the government stop there? Once that door opens you can’t close it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top