House Bill to Lower Insulin Costs PASSES - 193 GOPers Voted AGAINST it - Just 12 Voted FOR

[pknopp]

At least the people on insulin are pleased.

As of now they have nothing to be pleased over. Nothing has actually changed yet.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's a worthless argument. We can argue theories or we can argue realities.

Government takes from some and gives to others. That should STOP.

You're saying that is a worthless argument?

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh, sure. I don't disagree.

People who need insulin should still drastically change their diet either way.

Most do.

Mostly because they can very well kill themselves when they do not.

 

[HenryBHough]

As an insulin user I feel I have a right to this:

To a certain extent diabetes or the tendency toward it is genetic.
The cost of insulin and other treatments is enormous.
So much that some don't benefit from it and die prematurely.
But not generally so prematurely that they haven't first
reproduced and kept the condition growing in the general
population.

So I'm puzzled.

Why are not the culture-of-death Democrats mounting a campaign
to deny insulin to diabetics and, indeed, to murder them like so
many babies immediately upon diagnosis? Why are they not
making "the possibility of diabetes" grounds for government
paid abortion of any infants who MIGHT one day develop
diabetes?

What's holding you back?

 

[pknopp]

So now you are pretending that you did not use that argument?

No, I used computers as an example of how pathetic your example was. You cannot wave in the ge4neral direction of another market and then claim that supports a specific contention in a specific case without even hinting at why, how or what the function is.

Computers was your argument. Quit trying to deflect your failed arguments.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Most do.

Mostly because they can very well kill themselves when they do not.

People who do NOT need insulin also should re-evaluate their diets before they need insulin.

 

[pknopp]

Government takes from some and gives to others. That should STOP.

You're saying that is a worthless argument?

Yes because it is NEVER going to happen.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, free markets exist.

A free market is just like a democracy or a socialist system, they do not need to exist in a pure form to exist at all. There are MANY free markets across many nations. There is no such thing as a pure, perfect system because we live in the real world but that does not support the asinine claim that free markets do not exist at all.

Yes, I meant just that sort of "fantasy." Your presumption that anything within reason had been given short shrift is what's "asinine."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes because it is NEVER going to happen.

Neither is communism, so what is the point of talking about any of this horseshit.

 

[pknopp]

Neither is communism, so what is the point of talking about any of this horseshit.

I don't go back and forth about "Communism". I agree it's a completely worthless argument created by those without real arguments.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

House passes bill to lower insulin costs, but prospects unclear in Senate

The House passes a healthcare bill that would cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin users at $35 a month, but its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

www.latimes.com

The measure would cap insulin costs at $35 a month for consumers enrolled in both private health insurance plans and Medicare. Currently, based on the patient’s condition and choice of treatments, costs can range from $334 to $1,000 a month for insulin, according to a 2020 Kaiser Family Foundation report.

This is a really good bill. If you know any Diabetics - it is a very expensive and unfair lifestyle. Those poor people pay a truckload for treatment. Anything to help their burden is great.

193 GOPers voted against it of course. Thoughts?

Can you show me where in this bill the cost was actually reduced? Nothing changed, they just shuffled around who pays. So in reality the person needing the medication may pay less but all of the other people in their insurance pool pay more.

 

[pknopp]

Can you show me where in this bill the cost was actually reduced? Nothing changed, they just shuffled around who pays. So in reality the person needing the medication may pay less but all of the other people in their insurance pool pay more.

I agree they should have raised taxes to cover the costs........that way maybe more would be willing to address the inflated costs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Computers was your argument. Quit trying to deflect your failed arguments.

No, it was NOT.

I am not deflecting. Why do you think I made the sentence that DIRECTLY followed the statement you referred to:
"Do you see how utterly vapid that statement is?"

What statement did you think that referred to? OBVIOUSLY the one that directly preceded it. You just ignored it, didn't you. So now I have told you exactly what it meant and exactly how I applied it to your vapid example (the one you denied making). Are you going to persist in mischaracterizing the argument AGAIN?

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, I meant just that sort of "fantasy." Your presumption that anything within reason had been given short shrift is what's "asinine."

Your post makes no sense at all.

Are you sticking with the claim that free markets do not exist then?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I agree they should have raised taxes to cover the costs........that way maybe more would be willing to address the inflated costs.

And then we could do the same for mortgages, cars, food. Good idea moron.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in the exchange of property for any reason other than reducing market coercions.

So how is a government to raise revenue?

Free market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pknopp]

No, it was NOT.

I am not deflecting. Why do you think I made the sentence that DIRECTLY followed the statement you referred to:
"Do you see how utterly vapid that statement is?"

What statement did you think that referred to? OBVIOUSLY the one that directly preceded it. You just ignored it, didn't you. So now I have told you exactly what it meant and exactly how I applied it to your vapid example (the one you denied making). Are you going to persist in mischaracterizing the argument AGAIN?

I explained why your statement has no bearing at all in any way to the discussion.

 

[pknopp]

And then we could do the same for mortgages, cars, food. Good idea moron.

Fine with me. It's needs done. None of those things would be as high as they are if we actually paid up. We are $31 trillion in debt.

 

[FA_Q2]

I explained why your statement has no bearing at all in any way to the discussion.

So yes, you are going to continue to lie. Carry on then and ignore what I directly said, that I explained it when you misunderstood it and pretend that you did not say the things you did and ignore entire statements I made directly about the point. It is rather funny that you erect a straw man and then insist that was the argument when I pointed out what was actually meant. Because you are a mind reader now too.

Conversing with you is worthless.

 

[pknopp]

So yes, you are going to continue to lie. Carry on then and ignore what I directly said, that I explained it when you misunderstood it and pretend that you did not say the things you did and ignore entire statements I made directly about the point. It is rather funny that you erect a straw man and then insist that was the argument when I pointed out what was actually meant. Because you are a mind reader now too.

Conversing with you is worthless.

Are costs far lower in Japan? Do they have "free markets" as the reason?