[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

This thread has devolved into a circle jerk of economic ignorance. I'm surprised that no one has yet suggested that the government just print money to pay for everyone's medical expenses.

[Lemmo]

(03-06-2013 06:48 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

This thread has devolved into a circle jerk of economic ignorance. I'm surprised that no one has yet suggested that the government just print money to pay for everyone's medical expenses.

Nah. Printing money is difficult. Just have Congress outlaw disease.

[worldwidetraveler]

(03-05-2013 05:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

America has the worst obesity rates in the world, it is very low down in healthcare quality...

If you really look at it, obese people living longer is a testament to our healthcare quality.

[tenderman100]

(03-06-2013 06:48 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

This thread has devolved into a circle jerk of economic ignorance. I'm surprised that no one has yet suggested that the government just print money to pay for everyone's medical expenses.

Right -- I think if you did a test to compare levels of economic ignorance to levels of support for natonalized health care, high levels of each would have a correlation close to 1.

In one respect, the United States health care system is fantastic. Amazing medical centers, amazing innovations in drugs and medical devices. If you have an unusual disease or syndrome, somewhere in the USA there is a doctor who specializes in it and can help you.

Emergency care in US major urban centers in first rate. Tell me, if you got into a serious auto accident, where would you prefer to have it? In Chicago? Or Paris?

Let's ask Princess Diana -- oh, wait, she's dead.

Now, I will grant that the United States health care system is fucked up in one respect -- and that is transparent pricing. NO ONE knows the cost of anything. People spend more time investigating the cost/benefit of a flat screen TV than they will EVER spend over their lifetime figuring out the most cost effective medical care. Why?

The current system insulates a person from the true cost. And government, in its effort to do the impossible job of leveling the playing field for everyone, distorts prices every day. That's why the US Congress each year has to do the charade of the "doc fix" -- say they will lower reimbursement rates to doctors, but then don't. Because if they really DID lower those rates, doctors would stop seeing millions of patients.

Nationalized heath care ALSO insulates a individual from the true cost of health care. It is naive to think, as some do, that nationalized health care is "free." It's not. And when a central planning entity controls both the supply AND demand for an economic service, huge distortions occur. Service may be good here, and it may really suck there. But generally, it's going to suck, because there are no real incentives to create more efficiencies. You may be able to get treatment for X right away, but for Y? Get in line because, well, the central planners have determined we can't have a lot of treatment of Y because it costs too much.

Moreover, individual actors in the system are handed a certain constellation of incentives in a nationalized system. Why should I excercise, stay healthy, control my drinking? I'll get the health care I need. If you REALLY felt economic pain, maybe, just maybe, you'd act differently.

I think the people who support and run nationalized health services have good hearts. They believe it is the right and humane thing to do.

But ironically, it is the least humane option because it depends on the flawed assumptions of central planning. Price transparency in free markets ALWAYS trumps central planning. It's why you can buy a computer today for under $400 that would have cost $500,000 just 25 years ago. No government could ever plan that. Ever.

Now some will response, "Computers are objects...people are people." True enough, but health care in the end is an economic transaction, an economic event. Why not take advantage of the same benefits that a real application of economics can provide?

One way to do this is a blended system. Have the government provide vouchers, or tax credits, and then people can go out and purchase coverage. Provide MORE tax credits or vouchers for those who take better care of themselves. Allow healthy young people to purchase very low premium very high deductible catastrophic health insurances.

In other words, provide options -- a 55 inch plasma, or a 20 inch 720p LCD. Let the market sort it out.

But for the truly indigent, a governmental safety net.

Such a blended approach would be far far more effective. People would see real prices. Companies would innovate to provide better services a lower costs.

Let the markets operate. Would it be perfect? Never. Would it be better? Much.

[Teedub]

How much tax do you pay, I know it varies state to state, but is it that much less than what you'd pay in a country with UHC?

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

(03-06-2013 09:17 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

How much tax do you pay, I know it varies state to state, but is it that much less than what you'd pay in a country with UHC?

In federal income taxes for 2012, I paid about $12,800 before refund. After I get my tax refund, I will have paid about $9600. This is on a pre-tax income of about $95k. In state and city income taxes I think I paid about $5500. I will get about $200 of that back. Social Security must have been about $5500. My per diem adds about $6-7k in income, but that doesn't count as income for tax purposes.
So the various levels of government stole about 22% of my income in 2012. 20% if you consider my per diem as income.

My main issue with UHC isn't the extra taxes as much as it is the lower quality. If I get a serious disease, I know I'm more likely to survive in the American system. I'd much prefer if the American system moved towards more freedom, but as it is, at least it gives me a greater chance of surviving a serious disease than more socialist systems do. If UHC systems gave the disease survival rates you find in the US with the overall healthcare costs you find in Europe, I would probably support socialized healthcare.

[Teedub]

^ 20% is good. What would be better would be if that was the flat rate for everyone! Progressive income tax is shit, but I'm no economist so I don't really understand the complexities of all the systems.

I wish you could choose where your tax went. For example, you could fill out a form and say "I don't want this money going towards unnecessary wars that only benefit the military industrial complex, nor do I want it spent on pro-fat ideology in schools!"

[tenderman100]

(03-06-2013 09:17 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

How much tax do you pay, I know it varies state to state, but is it that much less than what you'd pay in a country with UHC?

I think the assumption behind this question -- why wouldn't you pay higher taxes if your could get health care "taken care of" -- is flawed.

It assumes the tradeoffs are 1 to 1. They are not.

Government, by virtue of being government, uses its revenue VERY inefficiently. Now, I am not an anarchist, and government is important, and it should be funded to the extent of its small, limited, and essential obligations.

But anything -- I mean ANYTHING -- the requires government to do supply and demand calculations for private economic activity is a complete waste of money.

When Barack Obama says government needs to "invest" I want to throw my shoe at the TV. Government doesn't invest -- government SPENDS. And it should spend money on SOME things. Defense. Security. A Judiciary. Sensible regulation.

But INVEST? That's a joke.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

(03-06-2013 09:58 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ 20% is good. What would be better would be if that was the flat rate for everyone! Progressive income tax is shit, but I'm no economist so I don't really understand the complexities of all the systems.

I wish you could choose where your tax went. For example, you could fill out a form and say "I don't want this money going towards unnecessary wars that only benefit the military industrial complex, nor do I want it spent on pro-fat ideology in schools!"

I'm not so opposed to progressive taxation, just to high tax rates overall.

I wish I could determine where my tax dollars went each paycheck. This is a great idea.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

(03-06-2013 09:58 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ 20% is good. What would be better would be if that was the flat rate for everyone! Progressive income tax is shit, but I'm no economist so I don't really understand the complexities of all the systems.

I wish you could choose where your tax went. For example, you could fill out a form and say "I don't want this money going towards unnecessary wars that only benefit the military industrial complex, nor do I want it spent on pro-fat ideology in schools!"

I'm not so opposed to progressive taxation, just to high tax rates overall.

I wish I could determine where my tax dollars went each paycheck. This is a great idea.

[cardguy]

An important point, often overlooked - is to ask why Americian medical bills are so expensive?

I read this the other day, and it does a good job of addressing this issue:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bi...illing-us/

[philly22]

(03-05-2013 05:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

America has the worst obesity rates in the world, it is very low down in healthcare quality...It's a racket by big pharma, big money, and the doctors, it has nothing to do with providing the best care.

I just don't understand the true hatred of "socialized" medicine in America. It works fine everywhere else, not perfect, but better than America's.

I say again, it is just cruel. I hate the NHS experiencing health tourism, but I like to know if I got cancer, I'd get seen and treated without being in $100,000 of debt. It's disgusting and I don't know how you guy's accept it.

Lol how is the fact that the obesity rates are so high the fault of the healthcare industry? If anything you should give them credit for having to take care of these fatties.

Universal healthcare doesn't mean that it would cost less. It would just mean that everyone is "covered". That money has to come from somewhere. So I'm not sure what your plan is exactly.

[tenderman100]

(03-06-2013 12:08 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

An important point, often overlooked - is to ask why Americian medical bills are so expensive?

I read this the other day, and it does a good job of addressing this issue:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bi...illing-us/

No, it does a shitty job and here's why.

It misleads about the drivers of costs. The drivers of costs are skewed pricing systems -- insurance coverage vs. government programs vs. cash on the barrel. It's not about big bad hospital systems gouging private customers while it does fine on Medicare.

It's crap.

[tenderman100]

(03-05-2013 05:40 PM)Grit Wrote:  

Yes the Lewis and Clark expedition should never have happened. Too many potential lawsuits.

The westward expansion? No infrastructure to keep people healthy. Can't do it.

The Klondike Gold Rush? Not allowed without proper permits be legal fees.

The great earthquake in San Francisco? We would still be litigating in 2013.

Here's another thought experiment for you.

Suppose a guy goes to the Federal government with an idea. He says,

"I've got this device -- I can mass produce it a low cost so millions of people can own one. This device will allow them to have incredible freedom. And what's more, this device will spawn millions of other businesses that support it, enhance it, and improve it. And people will have to replace the device after some years, not because of planned obsolescence, but because of its use, it will just wear out. This device will be huge boon to the economy."

"Sounds great," says the bureaucrat, "any downside?"

"Well, there's one. Our models predict that once the device is in widespread use, somewhere between 40-50,000 people a year will die as they are using it. A few hundred thousand will be injured. But the economic trade off is worth it."

"You've got to be kidding!" says the bureaucrat. "There's no way we can allow that. By the way, what is this device?"

"It's called an auto-mobile. It's a carriage the runs itself."

"Nope, not gonna happen. We'll just have to stick to horses. Safer."

[scorpion]

Tenderman, you make some valid points, but you get carried away with your anti-government rantings. Saying that government "can't invest" is one of the silliest and most transparently false statements imaginable.

You lose credibility when you let anti-government ideology blind you to the tangible benefits that government can provide due to its unique position in the marketplace. Government can make long term investments because it does not have to turn a profit like businesses do.

If the U.S. relied solely on private enterprise for investment, we would never have built the interstate highway system, Hoover Dam, the space program, nuclear energy or the internet. All of these emerged from government investment.

Your error is that you fail to differentiate between government spending and government investment. They are two different things. The problem today is that we have far too much government spending, and too little long-term government investment. It's no different in this regard than your personal finances. Throwing a thousand dollars a month into your entertainment budget is not the same thing as throwing a thousand dollars a month into your IRA.

[LoveBug]

It's not, which is why U.S. is alone in the first world on this one..

[tenderman100]

(03-06-2013 02:48 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Tenderman, you make some valid points, but you get carried away with your anti-government rantings. Saying that government "can't invest" is one of the silliest and most transparently false statements imaginable.

You lose credibility when you let anti-government ideology blind you to the tangible benefits that government can provide due to its unique position in the marketplace. Government can make long term investments because it does not have to turn a profit like businesses do.

If the U.S. relied solely on private enterprise for investment, we would never have built the interstate highway system, Hoover Dam, the space program, nuclear energy or the internet. All of these emerged from government investment.

Your error is that you fail to differentiate between government spending and government investment. They are two different things. The problem today is that we have far too much government spending, and too little long-term government investment. It's no different in this regard than your personal finances. Throwing a thousand dollars a month into your entertainment budget is not the same thing as throwing a thousand dollars a month into your IRA.

I am sorry, you are wrong -- and this is NOT a semantic distinction. It is a substantive distinction.

Government doesn't invest -- it provides services. Some of those services can be short term -- some can be long term and capital intensive.

Our government doesn't 'invest" in an aircraft carrier. It spends money to buy one.

It doesn't "invest" in roads. It spends money on roads to provide geographic connections. Remember, the interstate highway system is a lot more like an aircraft carrier, in that the motivation to build it was as a network to move troops around. Remember, too, the Internet wasn't built for commerce -- it was built as a robust communication network to survive in case of nuclear attack.

Government has a responsibility to build SOME infrastructure. Roads, Dams. Levees. But those are not "investments." Those are capital structures that provide services -- electric power, protection against floods, and so forth.

Finally, I am not anti-government. Government should provide essential services, and no more. I would include in that the funding of basic scientific research.

[scorpion]

(03-06-2013 04:49 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

I am sorry, you are wrong -- and this is NOT a semantic distinction. It is a substantive distinction.

Government doesn't invest -- it provides services. Some of those services can be short term -- some can be long term and capital intensive.

Our government doesn't 'invest" in an aircraft carrier. It spends money to buy one.

It doesn't "invest" in roads. It spends money on roads to provide geographic connections. Remember, the interstate highway system is a lot more like an aircraft carrier, in that the motivation to build it was as a network to move troops around. Remember, too, the Internet wasn't built for commerce -- it was built as a robust communication network to survive in case of nuclear attack.

Government has a responsibility to build SOME infrastructure. Roads, Dams. Levees. But those are not "investments." Those are capital structures that provide services -- electric power, protection against floods, and so forth.

Finally, I am not anti-government. Government should provide essential services, and no more. I would include in that the funding of basic scientific research.

But this is the very definition of a semantic distinction. You call it a "capital structure" that provides services, I call it an investment. The end result is the same, regardless of what you call it - the government spends money in the present to provide a long-term benefit to society in the future.

The point I was making was that government is uniquely positioned to make investments (or capital spending projects, if you prefer) of this type. Private business must seek a return on investment over the short to medium term in order to survive. Government is less constrained in this regard, and when properly utilized can focus on long-term public investment projects. I can understand your criticism of government because over the past several decades there has been an abysmal failure of government in this country to make real investments, and instead a focus on short term spending, which results in tremendous waste.

Also, your point about the intention behind government projects, such as the interstate system and the internet (and the space program and Manhattan Project for that matter) only proves my point. The government didn't even realize the benefits that would accrue over time from those investments, but civilian researchers and private businesses were able to look at the product of that initial government investment and research and generate enormous wealth and productivity from it. In this regard, I view the proper role of government as a sort of first mover, which can absorb most of the prohibitive costs that inhibit private enterprise from entering new arenas of investment and research. Private business can then build on that government investment and begin innovating and generating real wealth.

[tenderman100]

(03-06-2013 05:09 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

But this is the very definition of a semantic distinction. You call it a "capital structure" that provides services, I call it an investment. The end result is the same, regardless of what you call it - the government spends money in the present to provide a long-term benefit to society in the future.

The point I was making was that government is uniquely positioned to make investments (or capital spending projects, if you prefer) of this type. Private business must seek a return on investment over the short to medium term in order to survive. Government is less constrained in this regard, and when properly utilized can focus on long-term public investment projects. I can understand your criticism of government because over the past several decades there has been an abysmal failure of government in this country to make real investments, and instead a focus on short term spending, which results in tremendous waste.

Also, your point about the intention behind government projects, such as the interstate system and the internet (and the space program and Manhattan Project for that matter) only proves my point. The government didn't even realize the benefits that would accrue over time from those investments, but civilian researchers and private businesses were able to look at the product of that initial government investment and research and generate enormous wealth and productivity from it. In this regard, I view the proper role of government as a sort of first mover, which can absorb most of the prohibitive costs that inhibit private enterprise from entering new arenas of investment and research. Private business can then build on that government investment and begin innovating and generating real wealth.

The reason I am AGAINST the use of the word "investment" because its proper usage is as a concept that defines a RETURN on capital. That's why companies invest. The WANT a return.

Government should spend for a PURPOSE that cannot be achieved by private entities or by the marketplace. Benefits that accrue in a commercial realm are happy accidents.

For example, I have no problem with government funding basic research on solar energy, or fusion. Even if it goes nowhere. But government should not be giving loan guarantees to private businesses, a la Solyndra. Government should not be giving subsidies to ethanol production. And so on.

Government should never be a "first mover" in the sense of saying, "Let's direct our energy future here." It should provide the minimum of basic services that private companies cannot -- defense, judiciary, social safety nets, and BASIC research -- and get the hell out of the way.

[scorpion]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I don't think we're that far apart to be honest. Beyond public infrastructure and basic services, I think the government should be very picky about its spending.

In terms of being a first mover, I'm talking about things that show promise, but that private business just can't afford to take a risk on, like scientific research and development. But I don't think government should be picking winners and losers or tossing out subsidies left and right.

Good discussion.

[Deepdiver]

The problem with universal health care is it is the polar opposite of a true free market system - look at real free market industries - Cell Phones, Broadband Providers and Mobile Providers - as well as VoIP providers - Skype out offers unlimited US and Canada calling for $2.99 a month, Vonage unlimited worldwide for $39.99 a month and Comcast BIZ broadband and telephone unlimited NorAm calling and internet in your office for $99.00 a month... or Blockbuster, versus Netflix versus Hulu versus Redbox - free market competition.

And the big ISPs are in fact colluding... Comcast and Verizon carefully avoid stepping on each others toes though it looks like they try to compete... Imagine if they really did compete - true 4G would be everywhere by now and not just 4G LTE... for less than $50 a month with unlimited calling texting and data.

Same is actually happening in health care - I was quoted $3,000 locally for one dental implant with a 3 week wait to get the crown from a Chinese lab! In Kiev I have a dental clinic staffed with Swiss, Italian and Israeli trained (Where all the leading edge materials and Dental techniques are now invented) DMD implantologists and cosmetic dentists with their own lab (No waiting for cheap crap crowns from China like ALL USA dentists) offering state of the art materials who will do a full mouth restoration for around $10K+/- USD - that is all the implants you need with state of the art zirconium not just titanium implants, all the bondings and veneers and a full on Hollywood smile... same in the USA will run $50K to $100K and most employer plans will cover only $1K to $2K of cosmetic work a year - not even one implant! I worked with the woman from India that set up this biz - send a dental plan quote or onocological, cardiac or surgical quote from any NorAm "health care" firm and she will give you best options from around the world with full credentials of the offshore docs and their facilities - most who have not only been trained in the USA or EU but also served residencies or advanced specialty rotations in the USA at 1st tier Med Centers like Johns Hopkins or UT Medical etc.

http://www.healthbase.com/

A biz associate's brother had Gall Bladder surgery in China - cost $2,800.00 USD with a private suite and 5 star care - USA costs would have been well over $60K. Global free markets that have given us $99.00 iphones that would otherwise cost $700.00+ will also correct the obscenity that Nationalized Socialized Health Care that has doubled most small businesses costs in the past 24 months to $5K plus per single and $14K plus per family with NO Cost Competition in Pharma, Dental or Medical care - I use healthbase for everything that the VA does not cover in my case.

Why the cost differential - the Tort Lawyers Lobby and astronomic malpractice is nearly non-existent offshore - why - instead of USA AMA secrecy regarding M&M or mortality and morbidity there is full transparency in most of these countries in order to attract NorAm patients who pay a premium in their markets but often at an 80% to 90% discount from the corrupt USA system - great MD's and DMD's with great results get rich offshore due to demand and poor ones wind up teaching as NO one will go to the flakes frauds or quacks that hide in the USA system and drive up Malpractice. I worked in a major Harvard Med Teaching Hospital holding Corp - the PC crap that takes place there would astound you. Most of my colleagues even with discounted insurance would not use providers in the Teaching Hospitals we worked at. Why - Blue Pill PC insanity run amok.

Huge new biz opp - International Health Insurance aimed at health tourism industry with 100% full transparency on all cases, procedures, success/morbidity rates and providers track records with Angies List type feedback positive or negative. Will probably have to come from offshore and purchased in offshore servers as the USA Health monopolists and their parasitic unnecessary in a truly transparent system Tort Lawyers will fight any real true USA free market healthcare reforms kicking and screaming all the way to the Congress and Senate.

Long live Red Pill globe trotters and the options we are able to enjoy - have passport - travel to true FREE markets that offer the baset products, services and care in the world no matter where they may be - the ultimate Libertarian ideal.

OBTW more and more US Health Insurers are quietly paying for health tourism options as the costs are so much lower and success rates often much higher as the MDs and staff focus on care and not just volume to make their malpractice nut which can run $500K to $1M+ a year per MD for certain so called "high risk" specialties. They current socialized Obamacare system cuts medical competition in the USA and ensures personal injury and malpractice Lawyers become richer than King Solomon.

Something to be said for true global free markets.

[Teedub]

Bumping this thread, just to see if opinions have changed in light of political/economic events since 2013.

I still think Scorpion gave the best answer, although sixsix' thing about the schools, police, fire service, military all being 'socialist' was a good one also. Anyway, Scorpion's point:

(03-05-2013 07:05 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It's a very complicated issue, but essentially it boils down to the fact that for better or worse Americans value freedom (or at least the appearance of it) over good health. It's just a cultural thing.

You also see this same attitude in regards to guns in America, as well as efforts to regulate and tax junk food. People would rather suffer the consequences that sometimes accompany freedom than have the government make decisions for them.

The glaring exception to this is the country's attitude toward terrorism. The population will go along with almost any measure designed to keep them safe from terrorism. Why? Because they're scared shitless from 9/11 and a decade of ongoing propaganda.

Want to get universal healthcare in America? Find some way to scare the shit out of the population and convince them that they're going to die if everyone doesn't have healthcare.

Edit: I agree with others who brought up homogeneity etc. People are more willing to chip in for people like themselves.

[godzilla]

For the record, I'm completely against Universal Healthcare.

This is an extremely complicated subject, one that takes too long to write about. But I'll sum up a few issues about what's wrong with American health care. Obamacare is making the initial problems far worse.

What you have to understand is that the health insurance in the United States is not a free market system. Before Obamacare, (and still today). The United States has an employer based health care. Years ago, some moron decided to allow corporations to "pay" employees with health care benefits tax free. As you can imagine, almost every single person gets their health insurance from their employer. The problem with this is that no one buys their health insurance individually. For the most part, someone at HR chooses a company to go through, and they offer maybe 2 or 3 plans that you can choose from. That means "Mary" the 300lb obese secretary usually pays the same premium as the fit 200lb man. The only important question the insurance company asks is whether I smoke or not.

People here often confuse health care with health insurance. These are 2 very different things. Insurance was meant to cover risk of loss, but now in the U.S due to various laws, my insurance basically decides how many times I can go to the doctor. And how much I pay when I go, and if I go too often, I pay some insane price to do it.

I can not buy health insurance across state lines. FDR in 1945 made insurance a state thing. If you live in New Jersey, you can not buy insurance from Pennsylvania. There are several problems with this. Some states do not have many companies, which leads to uncompetitive prices from insurance companies and higher health care costs. Secondly, many states have "mandates" for health insurance. What I mean by this, is that they force companies to cover certain health costs. In some states for example, I pay for pre-natal care as part of my plan, when quite clearly I'm not a women. There are better examples of this that I don't have at the moment.

Hospitals here also have no incentive to bring down costs. This is too complicated for me to explain. But going to the ER even with insurance is going to cost you a fortune here. Hospitals are also big corporate giants now.

Lastly, despite all the propaganda years ago about it, nobody in the United States is actually denied care. It has been illegal by law for decades for hospitals to deny coverage for those going to an ER. Drug companies used to be also pretty good about providing drugs for free for those who were WITHOUT insurance.

Then there is this whole about drug prices, and how we basically subsidize the rest of the world. As you can imagine, there is a reason nothing gets done.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(04-05-2017 04:03 PM)godzilla Wrote:  

I can not buy health insurance across state lines. FDR in 1945 made insurance a state thing. If you live in New Jersey, you can not buy insurance from Pennsylvania.

In PA I could have bought from age 24 through my 30s a catastrophic only insurance plan ($3million in coverage) for $125 per month. $90 per month if I took a lower limit of coverage. The plan was HSA qualified.

For the hell of it, I figured out about what that HSA would be worth today (approximately): $130,000, which includes losing $10k to pay the deductible from a major accident I had years back.

Singapore, as part of its reforms basically makes an HSA mandatory, with the required savings around 36% of salary (employer + employee contribution).

[Disco_Volante]

It's not about caring for citizens, it's about controlling the citizens.

Look how much those socialized healthcare countries are destroying their own citizens with primitive immigration. It's the same token of they think they know what's best for your life, and how you should live.

I don't give a fuck how good the government says its intentions are, it ends up with them controlling you more and more. This is how they trick Christians so well. Instead of conquering them with an army, just pass more and more nice-sounding legislation that 'cares for the poor' and other bullshit that leads to consolidating power.

It's like how people thought the gay marriage issue was simply about gay marriage, then they IMMEDIATELY began demanding trannys be forced down your throats in schools. They get you to accept a premise that sounds compassionate then they're forcing you at gun-point to do something else.