The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: now you are making assumptions

(See in situ)

now you are making assumptions

Now you are making assumptions about where I stand. It doesn't matter if a heart attack can be resolved by a witch doctor or not. I certainly never said it couldn't be. But in his system catastrophic coverage would be available. So death being imminent. Sure you can fight over how imminent. What counts and what doesn't. But for the sake of your argument I think you need to address what the common person thinks. That is what he is trying to the common person looks at it. So all I did was suggest changing your example, that is all.

You said his system is no different than the current one. I maintain that it is different. The current system pays for annual physicals. His system wouldn't for instance. There are many differences and I think you could improve your argument by addressing his system rather than the current one with your arguments.

Yes, I agree that in either system your money is being taken to help other people or you are being given money from other people to help you as the case may be....I won't assume one way or another which side the balance would come out in your case. In his system less money would be "stolen" than in the current system so that is another difference. More aspects of healthcare would be free of this regulation as well so that is another difference.

I personally think any system will be fought over no matter what. People in general chose to have more regulations because it wasn't working out. However people also forget to look back and say are we better off? They forget to reevaluate. They forget to look at the consequences of these regulations. blowback!!