3 ms·

> You are doing the exact hand-waving I’ve specifically requested you avoid “meh... let people sort it out “ is not a sound policy unless you are an anarchist.

> You are doing the exact hand-waving I’ve specifically requested you avoid “meh... let people sort it out “ is not a sound policy unless you are an anarchist. So I can’t tell if you really don’t have any real insight or are just struggling to communicate them. Without concrete examples or evidence, most of this reads like an Ayn Rand book report. Your problem is you have black & white thinking. Your response my claim that there are broken feedback loops, that taxes are too high, & there is an autopoetic tendency for psychopathy to set into big government systems including mass genocide is "government good", "you must be anarchist". Your religion of statism blinds you to obvious points that I have already clearly stated. It's you who has a comprehension problem due to your religion. You do seem like you have a semblance in your intelligence, despite your sophistry. It's too bad you are blinded to certain obvious realities due to your ideology.

bumby 6y ago
You still deflect and refused to answer a number of specific questions. You also continuously err into assuming you know my position. I’m asking questions to try and get clarity into your ideas rather than making those assumptions. Yet, you refuse to answer them and seem more interested in getting on a soap box rather than having an actual dialog. I’ll try to give an actual example so you can see what I mean. You bring up the inability to improve health outcomes with specific government programs. I ask you how you would propose to fix that and your answer is “shrink the government and let people choose.” That’s a superficial sound bite and not a real answer. I was hoping for something like 1) Reduce price controls by reducing Medicare and Medicaid 2) To avoid those left out who would previously have been covered, create a health savings program for each individual 3) Expand the HSA benefits to those gainfully employed to reduce tax burdens 4) Create clear quality metrics to objectively measure various health insurance providers and clear, standardized, transparent guidelines to measure health providers to be eligible This would reduce government to a role of oversight while reducing tax burdens on income. It would also allow individuals to make their own decisions about providers while allow the free market to innovate. It would alleviate some of the information transparency issues. Instead, all you can advocate is: Get rid of government + { hand wave + magic } = better outcomes The latter comes across as a sophomoric understanding of the actual problem. Not unlike your overly simplified model of what you seem to think you can assume about my personal position. You’ve probably had some success in the past your word salad veiling approach without showing much concrete understanding but it’s failed to convince me

bumby 6y ago

You still deflect and refused to answer a number of specific questions. You also continuously err into assuming you know my position. I’m asking questions to try and get clarity into your ideas rather than making those assumptions. Yet, you refuse to answer them and seem more interested in getting on a soap box rather than having an actual dialog. I’ll try to give an actual example so you can see what I mean. You bring up the inability to improve health outcomes with specific government programs. I ask you how you would propose to fix that and your answer is “shrink the government and let people choose.” That’s a superficial sound bite and not a real answer. I was hoping for something like 1) Reduce price controls by reducing Medicare and Medicaid 2) To avoid those left out who would previously have been covered, create a health savings program for each individual 3) Expand the HSA benefits to those gainfully employed to reduce tax burdens 4) Create clear quality metrics to objectively measure various health insurance providers and clear, standardized, transparent guidelines to measure health providers to be eligible This would reduce government to a role of oversight while reducing tax burdens on income. It would also allow individuals to make their own decisions about providers while allow the free market to innovate. It would alleviate some of the information transparency issues. Instead, all you can advocate is: Get rid of government + { hand wave + magic } = better outcomes The latter comes across as a sophomoric understanding of the actual problem. Not unlike your overly simplified model of what you seem to think you can assume about my personal position. You’ve probably had some success in the past your word salad veiling approach without showing much concrete understanding but it’s failed to convince me