WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
You think I am because when you read something into my comments that isn't there and then respond to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.
Then clarify your thoughts rather than complain about being misunderstood, my friend. You threw out a position, "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.", but didn't specify what you mean, and how that is accurate. Nothing Jeff said was wrong, just a different interpretation of meanings. Medicare isn't "government run healthcare", it is government funded healthcare. There is a vast difference between funding and control. Just ask any governor.
In your response you didn't really clarify what you meant. I'm asking you to clarify what you mean.
When I said "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare." he claimed that was saying it would be identical the British healthcare system. Since I don't know much about the British system I cannot say that ours would be identical to theirs. That is where Jeffery was wrong. I did not make any comparison of Medicare for all with the British system. When our government funds something, be it Medicare or anything else, it makes the rules. Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary
