[justa-hairyape]

I am old school. If someone is following me, I lose em.

[InterceptPoint]

If you assume that Fried man's economic analysis is correct you have to believe that in a world where we had robots that did EVERYTHING from growing our food to manufacturing our cars and HDTVs and cellphones most of us would be living in total poverty due to the lack of jobs.

This is insane. Yes, technical knowledge is getting to be more of a factor in getting a good job. But you don't have to be a super-scientist to have tech knowledge. Just ask your plumber or your electrician. They both have pretty darn important technical knowledge and they are not giving their time away for free.

And to use this flawed economic model as a basis for a "safety net" of nationalized healthcare is ludicrous. Calling Obamacare a plague is closer to the truth.

[Windflier]

The posted excerpt doesn’t contain the money quote from the article that explains this guy’s rationale for (still) supporting Obamacare, and I ain’t clicking on a link to the New York Times to find out.

What’s the gist of this guy’s reasoning?

[plain talk]

Friedman makes a very weak case for Single Payer not ObamaCare. His premise is society with massive unemployment needs a massive safety net. How does forcing them to buy health insurance help? Friedman doesn’t even know what ObamaCare is FCOL. He thinks it is government “free” health care from the feds.

[Mike Darancette]

Having a national health care safety net under the vast majority of Americans — to ease and enable people to make this transition — is both morally right and in the interest of everyone who wants a stable society.

For the young starting out this is way more insurance than they need. This is simply to help pay for older and sicker enrollees. Those just starting out need lower deductible catastrophic overage. You don't buy auto insurance to change the oil.

Anyway this tool will be one of the first to forsake Obamacare when Hillary decides it's time.