No thread - no link, and you mentioned the Weekly Standard which is not AT. So again, irrelevant.
Have you read American non-Thinker? Seriously?
Wrong. You're singing the praises of a Single Payer health system, so it's incumbent on YOU to show it makes things better. I'm simply stating the obvious falsehoods of a Single Payer health system and have provided the reasons why a bureaucratic system will fail and have failed. You brought up free markets not me. You've not bothered to defend the obvious failure of a single payer system so I can only assume there is no defense, therefore your red herring about competition and accessibility is a complete failure. I'm not biting on the obvious distraction.
Yes, and I have mentioned how in two ways. 1) Better access 2) costs less. We pay more than any other country and have less access than many.
However, you sung the praises of competition and the market place. I addressed that directly. You made the claim, but don't want to defend it.
All people have access today. There is no law, no force preventing access.
No, they don't. Many working people are not covered by insurance and can't afford proper care. So, factually, you're simply wrong. And throwing int he law thing is a red herring in that no one argued or stated there was a law preventing anything. Cost prevents, lack of coverage prevents, not law.
Why? It was inaccurate. :shrug:
Competition provides quality, as those private businesses who do not perform are not used, and go out of business. As well, the more competition there is, the higher the quality of said products, and the less likely for mediocre products. But this is old news... from 2006:
First, I repeat, if you can't afford it, quality is of no concern. No access, quality is irrelevent.
However, for your reading:
There is little evidence or any relationship, either positive or negative, between competition and medical care . . .
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Some studies show increased competition leading to increased quality, and some show the opposite. While this may appear surprising, it is not. Economic theory predicts that quality may either increase or decrease with increased competition when firms are setting both the quality and price.
http://www.ftc.gov/be/healthcare/wp/05_Gaynor_WhatDoWeKnowAboutCompetitionandQuality.pdf
Look back at post #207, middle of the page, it's right there.
I read your statement as saying the a larger force was less effective, and I said, yes. Less effective. I was calling for a smaller more mobile and more tactically designed for modern concerns. You were taking acception, meaning you wanted a larger force. So, no, I did not say I wanted a less effective military.
So going back to your previous statement, you then believe a less effective military is the right tool? Yet, I still have to go back to your single payer statement --- you want healthcare to be more efficient, but the military to be less effective, and you don't deny saying that....
Again no. And you should understand that by now.
My error was assuming you could carry on a conversation. You apparently didn't know Vietnam was not a World War, yet you ignore WWI and WWII and you do not address the risk as I've pointed it out. Therefore not only are incorrect but you've been misled - and tragically so. I hope you've learned your lesson.
Now you're just being silly.
And you finished off silly. The point is, I accept a progressive tax, have no problem paying more than others. You have not presented any facts that address that at all.