UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Costs do not go down as government controls increase oh smoke and mirrors worshipper. That's ridiculous.
yes they do, all the empirical evidence shows us this.

Costs do not go down as government controls increase oh smoke and mirrors worshipper. That's ridiculous.
Anyone can go back through beenthere's posts and easily see we are two different people, it's not even close.
You just like to call people who troll you back, a previously banned member in hopes they will get banned, I've never messaged a single mod about you continuously breaking the rules, you can't say the same.
I settle my battles myself, no whiner here,
Why do you continue to try to portray me as a previously banned member?
You are okay in my book
yes they do, all the empirical evidence shows us this.
![]()
because the admin said you are.
and because i have common sense and can clearly tell that you are beenthere.
of course he is, he cites jared taylor and victor thorn. i'm sure you are enamored of anyone like that.
All that your graph proves is that Americans tend to spend more on Healthcare than people from a select few other nations. It doesn't prove anything about government controls making costs go down or increasing efficiency.yes they do, all the empirical evidence shows us this.
![]()
You may be confusing cost and retail price.
All that your graph proves is that Americans tend to spend more on Healthcare than people from a select few other nations. It doesn't prove anything about government controls making costs go down or increasing efficiency.
Good point. Nor does it prove that government intervention lowers costs or prices. It might prove the opposite though.
you're the confused one.
that graph lists per capita expenditures on health care.
as government control goes up, prices go down. that directly contradicts what you are saying.
your bullshit rhetoric falls apart when facing reality.
then why do nations with more government intervention have lower per capita health care expenditures?
I don't read much of your charts and graphs. They bore me.
Costs (retail price) to a consumer goes down when more service providers enter a given market...are you really going to deny that?
Because when there is more weed around you get to charge more for it ? No...wait.
I'm laughing at you, very hard.
so you choose to remain willfully ignorant. got it.
you have provided zero evidence of that, whereas i have provided tons of evidence that more government intervention results in lower per capita health care costs.
you want to just go on denying reality because it doesn't conform to your magical utopia?
Okay dunce cap. Every weed grower in Cali has a bumper crop, there's fucking weed everywhere....what happens to the sale price....does it go up or down when supply increases and demand remains the same?
I think you are boring me now. I'm going to go smoke a giant fattie to see if I can get stupified and better understand you.
Feel free to draw a penis picture or something while I'm gone off sparking one up.
we're talking about health care, not cali weed.
why is it that nations with more government control and intervention are more efficient and cost less?
Because in those countries they don't let a 93 year old dieing from terminal pancreatic cancer the option of a new untried $3 million operation. They just let them die.then why do nations with more government intervention have lower per capita health care expenditures?
Perhaps per capita spending is lower in other countries because unemployment is HIGHER WAY HIGHER and they have a lot less to spend..yes they do, all the empirical evidence shows us this.
![]()