Trump's 'Great Healthcare Plan' Has Promise but Should Add More Freedom for Americans
Empowering patients is good. Let’s give them a lot more choice and independence.
The Trump administration unveiled the outlines of a health care reform plan last week and, surprisingly for any policy proposal these days, it contains some decent ideas that would empower individuals instead of bureaucrats. Unsurprisingly, though, "The Great Healthcare Plan" doesn't really undo the bad government interventions and restrictions that limit choice and raise costs. The plan might offer some improvement over what we have, but it should be a lot better. In fact, legislation that would greatly improve the plan has already been presented to Congress.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
A Healthcare Plan in Four Bullet Points
"President Donald J. Trump's Great Healthcare Plan is a broad healthcare initiative that will slash prescription drug prices, reduce insurance premiums, hold big insurance companies accountable, and maximize price transparency in the American healthcare system," the White House boasted Thursday.
In its current form, the Great Healthcare Plan consists largely of four bullet points with some limited explanation, aimed at improving transparency, increasing patients' control over their health care dollars, and improving access to medications without having to ask expensive permission.
Specifically, the plan aims to lower drug prices by "codifying the Trump Administration's Most-Favored-Nation deals to get Americans the same low prices for prescription drugs that people in other countries pay." It also "makes more verified safe pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase."
The administration proposes to lower insurance premiums by no longer "sending big insurance companies billions in extra taxpayer-funded subsidy payments and instead send that money directly to eligible Americans to allow them to buy the health insurance of their choice." It also "funds a cost-sharing reduction program for healthcare plans which would…reduce the most common Obamacare plan premiums by over 10%." The cost-sharing plan is an existing arrangement that subsidizes some Silver Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans to reduce premiums, copayments, and out-of-pocket costs.
The Great Healthcare Plan would also require insurance companies to publish "the percentage of their revenues that are paid out to claims versus overhead costs and profits" and the percentage of claims they reject. Insurers would also have to "publish rate and coverage comparisons upfront on their websites in plain English" and, if they accept Medicaid or Medicare, "prominently post their pricing and fees," building on a requirement from his first term that hospitals and insurers post prices.
Right now, the Great Healthcare Plan is skeletal, lacking much in the way of detail. That said, it does contain what could be good ideas, depending on implementation.
Some Good Ideas, With Room for Improvement
"Reclassifying many prescription-only pharmaceuticals as over the counter should indeed help lower drug prices," comments Jeffrey A Singer, a Cato Institute senior fellow and Arizona surgeon. "In many cases, once drugs are sold over the counter, their sticker price ends up lower than what insured patients used to pay in copays."
"The plan includes a number of provisions that would lower overall health care costs and generate modest fiscal savings, and one provision – related to the ACA subsidies – that could substantially increase borrowing, depending on its design," adds the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "By our rough estimates, the cost-reducing provisions could reduce primary deficits by about $50 billion over a decade. The ACA changes could generate modest additional savings or increase primary deficits by up to $350 billion, depending on the design."
That said, "'Obamacash for enrollees' would expand Obamacare and create countless problems," cautions Cato's Michael F. Cannon, who sees lost opportunities in the proposal. He points out that "'universal health accounts' would free workers to control the $1 trillion that employers control—a larger effective tax cut than Reagan's." He recommends an addendum to the plan to "secure Trump's greatest first-term health care accomplishment by permanently removing barriers to Obamacare-exempt plans." Specifically, he praised Trump's first term expanded exemptions from meddlesome and expensive federal regulations for relatively short-term health care insurance plans.
The Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) also sees openings for improvement. "We know President Trump wants his plan to be a great health plan, but unfortunately, his plan keeps in place the infrastructure that is hurting patients, doctors, and prices today," comments Twila Brase, CCHF president.
Brase praises expanded access to medications without prescriptions. But she warns that "Trump's plan does not restore real health insurance—the affordable major medical indemnity policies solely for catastrophic and insurable events—and thus restricts the health coverage choices that Americans need."
She also proposes putting "the dollars in the hands of Medicare recipients and give them a choice between Medicare, which is running out of money, and affordable real health insurance."
Basically, critics of what we've seen of the Great Healthcare Plan worry that it just builds a little more transparency and a few more options—plus added subsidies—into existing Obamacare distortions of the medical marketplace.
Rand Paul's Healthcare Legislation Is Ready To Go
A good place to start in terms of fleshing out the health care plan with details that would expand choice and patient freedom and lower costs is Sen. Rand Paul's (R–Ky.) "Health Marketplace and Savings Accounts for All Act," introduced last month.
"With my plan, to provide the leverage needed to reduce the cost of premiums, nearly any conceivable membership entity, such as Costco or Amazon, would be empowered to collectively bargain on behalf of their members with health insurers to lower rates," Paul commented.
The bill raises the annual contribution cap on tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) from $4,400 for individuals and $8,750 for families to $24,500 and extends HSA eligibility to everybody. It also expands what HSAs can cover. More patients could cover their costs without going through a third party.
Basically, Paul's bill would dramatically increase Americans' control over their health care money and make their coverage portable by delinking it from employment.
The Trump administration rightly recognizes that American health care needs reform and greater patient power over expenditures, but the plan it offers is skeletal and needs improvement. It should incorporate existing proposals and legislation that would strip intrusive rules from medicine and empower Americans to control their own care.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Twat about my freedom to see a veterinarian for lower-cost care? If I feel like I am a dog, I am a dog! I should SNOT need to see a fucking parasitical asshole judge to validate my claim to feel like a dog!
Or how about my freedom to see an UNLICENSED DOCTOR? If they label themselves ass such, why snot? And how many doctors lose their license to practice over bullshit reasons SNOT related to medical care? Like snot paying their child support, or snot kissing The Dear Fat Orange Ass of Dear Caligula-Shitler?
And fer Chrissakes... Why snot buy medical insurance across state lines? Twat is the interstate commerce clause for, anyway?! It SHOULD give us a bypass for states that want to MANDATE coverage for species-change operations, space alien abduction therapy, etc. Let me lower my coverage to lower my costs, already!
LET'S GET RADICAL, here! Radical freedom for all!!!
my freedom to see a veterinarian for lower-cost care?
Any competent veterinarian would recommend euthanasia in your case.
I’ve been advocating to have it out down for years.
We tried radical forced by your overlords. That failed as they did and you do.
Well. I guess we have reached the part of the story where they are storming churchs now.
With Don Lemon for some reason
Comic relief?
I was lol'ing a little bit calculating the litany of federal violations
He's a little retarded, gay, black Geraldo. The retarded part is a real complement considering Geraldo isn't exactly an intellectual giant.
Just waiting for JC to write an article about how the current storming of churches is a needed response to fascist government, caused by Trump and ICE.
Meanwhile, however, and back on topic, this is a pretty decent article about what's going on with healthcare laws and reform. In spite of Sqrlsy's apparent inability form coherent sentences (there are theories that he is perpetually drunk, so who know), there are some nuggets of sense in his post above. Medical insurance across state lines and licensing of doctors have long been obvious reforms.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/protesters-disrupt-minneapolis-church-over-174812682.html
Protesters disrupt Minneapolis church service over Pastor’s alleged ICE ties
Posting a link is a nice thing to do, ya know...
Rethugglicans and RePoopLicKKKunts did shit first when the Trumpanzees went Apeshit, storming the Capitol to replace democracy with mobocracy, ya know, so twatever the Demon-Craps do now, is MORE than cummendable! BOTH SIDES can play this game, ya know!!! Twat's good for the goose, is good for the noose!
Twataboutism, yeah, I know... The below is twat I really think and stink about twataboutism...
Butt, whatabout that them thar whatabouts? Twatabout Hillary? Whatabout OJ Simpson?
How many brain cells does it take to run a socio-political simulation on the following:
Judge and Jury: “Murderer, we find you guilty of murder! 20 years in the hoosegow for YOU! Now OFF with ye!”
Murderer: “But OJ Simpson got off for murder, why not me? We’re all equal, and need to be treated likewise-equal!”
Judge and Jury: “Oh, yes, sure, we forgot about that! You’re free to go! Have a good life, and try not to murder too many MORE people, please! Goodbye!”
Now WHERE does this line of thinking and acting lead to? Think REALLY-REALLY HARD now, please! What ABOUT OJ Simpson, now? Can we make progress towards peace & justice in this fashion?
(Ass for me, I think we should have PUT THE SQUEEZE on OJ!)
Morning, fascist.
Do you understand the difference between protesting to politicians at the Capitol, and protesting people completely unassociated with politicians or Immigration officials at a church because of rumours about the pastors possible opinions?
Probably not.
This falls right in with your claim that the FBI and CIA were just exercising their free speech when they clamped down on social media, or pretending that the Good Samaritan clause didn't permit censorship.
I really wish you were a parody so I wouldn't have to believe there's someone so depraved out there pretending they're libertarian.
Hey ChatGPT, what is ML doing here?
Here’s a structured analysis of the comment, focusing on tone, intent, rhetoric, and argument quality:
1. Overall Tone
Highly hostile and contemptuous.
The opening (“Morning, fascist.”) sets an aggressive, insulting tone that persists throughout.
The writer uses derision, sarcasm, and moral condemnation, not persuasion.
2. Intent
The primary intent is to attack and delegitimize the target, not to engage in good-faith discussion.
Secondary intent appears to be signaling moral superiority and performing outrage, likely for an audience rather than for dialogue.
The comment does not meaningfully seek clarification or mutual understanding.
3. Rhetorical Techniques Used
Ad hominem attacks: Repeatedly insults the person rather than focusing on their arguments (“fascist,” “depraved,” “pretending they’re libertarian”).
Rhetorical questions: Used not to invite answers, but to imply incompetence or ignorance (“Do you understand…? Probably not.”).
Strawman framing: Attributes positions to the target in a simplified or exaggerated way (e.g., characterizing views on the FBI/CIA and social media moderation without nuance).
Loaded language: Words like “fascist,” “clamped down,” “pretending” are emotionally charged to provoke reaction rather than analysis.
Moral shaming: Frames disagreement as evidence of personal corruption rather than intellectual error.
4. Argument Quality
Low in terms of logical rigor.
While the comment gestures toward potentially substantive issues (e.g., protest legitimacy, government pressure on social media, interpretation of the Good Samaritan clause / Section 230), it:
Does not clearly define the opposing position.
Does not provide evidence.
Conflates multiple issues into a single accusatory narrative.
The hostility undermines any persuasive force the argument might have had.
5. Emotional Content
Dominated by anger, contempt, and disgust.
The closing sentence expresses existential frustration with the target’s identity and beliefs rather than their specific claims.
6. Likely Impact on Discourse
Escalatory: Encourages defensiveness or retaliation rather than discussion.
Polarizing: Reinforces in-group/out-group dynamics.
Low chance of productive response, unless the recipient deliberately disengages from the tone and reframes the discussion.
Summary
This comment is an example of ideological hostility framed as critique. It contains traces of substantive political disagreement, but those are overwhelmed by personal attacks and rhetorical aggression, making it far more effective as an expression of anger than as an argument.
has anyone fed sqrlsy to ChatGPT yet?
I tried, but ChatGPT vomited then crashed.
Ok, that was funny.
ya not bad ... boom
They did. ChatGPT got a case of food poisoning.
Too much snot, twat, cum, shit, apeshit, kunt, poop, ass, asshole,...Copralalia and Tourettes is strong in that one.
Heresy!!!
There can NEVER be too much snot, twat, cum, shit, apeshit, kunt, poop, ass, or assholes... Take shit on AuthorShitty!!! Dear Orange Caligula TOLD me so!!!
I mean it was trained on reddit so....
So instead of addressing ML’s concerns, you decide today is a good day to engage in ad hominem.
You really are an asshole.
You are just a nuisance. You are like the guy who hangs around the school bully pretending to be his sidekick. You're just there because you want to be seen as part of the in-group, so you will get praise from the JesseBots and the MLs and the TrollMacs. But in reality they don't care about you, don't respect you, and you only diminish yourself with your pathetic attention-seeking.
You remind me of the people who slept through highschool, got a dead-end job, discovered that menial jobs are easily outsourced, and then complained that "Mexicans stole my job" while doing absolutely nothing to advance one's career or earning potential.
^^^
The projection is strong in that one.
It really is.
But ChatGTP is dead right. My post was positively dripping with venom towards Shillsy. In fact, I don't think it really caught the true level of contempt I have for him.
That’s a far more accurate description of you, and especially Sarc.
You’re just angry that we’re not letting you get away with your usual crap anymore. If you weren’t an idiot you would read the room, amd then leave.
"This comment is an example of ideological hostility framed as critique. It contains traces of substantive political disagreement, but those are overwhelmed by personal attacks and rhetorical aggression, making it far more effective as an expression of anger than as an argument."
100% true. I'm not even pissed. That's exactly what I was going for with my response to the evil squirrel. What, you think anyone can debate with him like he's a human? What a waste of time that would be.
So thanks Lying Jeffy and thanks ChatGTP for underlining my post for me.
... Oh wait, you thought that was supposed to be bad, somehow? Wait until it analyzes the contempt I have for you.
Hey Fatfuck, that doesn’t work when you do it.
Morning, Swillfully Ideologically Blinded One!
Trumpanzees gone Apeshit, violently lusting after replacing democracy with mobocracy USA-wide, at the center of federal political power, were a damned sight more of a widespread danger to us all, than some hot-tempered protesters storming a single church! There IS no single location of centralized religious power in the USA, for one thing! For another thing, they did SNOT call for... Let's "Hang Mike Pence", because he DARED to insist on following the USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition, peacefully transferring power, and lawn odor! WHERE, really, is the supposed devotion to "lawn odor" on the part of these ones who call themselves "conservatives", conserving NOTHING butt their own POWER? Certainly they do SNOT, lately, even want to conserve DEMOCRACY SHITSELF!!!
Sounds like my college days. But what the fuck has any of this got to do with the original article about the Donald's health insurance plan?
The USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition has no provisions to enable Government Almighty to mess with private free-market consumer-buyer choices, nor with medical over-regulation. The personal physician to George Washington, as I recall reading about, warned us about entanglement between Government Almighty and medicine, as a matter of fact! WHY is Dear Orange Caligula getting to be The Emperor of EVERYTHING? Shit sure is snot per the USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition!!!
I'm old enough to remember the civil rights protests in the 60s and the Vietnam war protests. They were with few exceptions peaceful because non violence was the whole strategy advocated by MLK emulating Ghandi. The kids that got killed at Kent State were 300 feet from the NG. They weren't obstructing. There was a small subset of self described revolutionaries that were indeed very violent but they were mostly operating underground, they weren't rioting. Things obviously got out of hand in Chicago in 68 but with Daley in charge it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. That all changed with the BLM riots. We were explicitly told that arson and theft and murder were justified even if perpetrated against innocent civilians. Now we have Democratic politicians encouraging people to confront and obstruct federal cops and now shut down hotels and invade churches. This is not peaceful protest it criminal assholery. Ironic that they chose MLK weekend for this latest stunt.
Yippies were as much responsible for Chicago as Daley. And the overall change in the lefts protest tactics.
Funny too that the Trump admin changed federal policy to allow law enforcement operations into churches, though I don't know of any actual ops having been executed. Hopefully this gives them pause from actually acting on them. Disrupting people worshipping is low scumbag behavior and I'm agnostic on religion- probably more atheist but people like Bill Maher sour that label for me.
But, you can’t cross state lines!
I'd like to see a restructuring of the tax breaks for medical insurance to individuals rather than businesses - to allow individuals a chance to be able to afford 'portable' plans that aren't tied to employment.
FACE act violation. Let's see Dillon charge it.
And nothing happened....
Fair.
If they don't start arresting and prosecuting people for violating the law, we're beyond hope.
Civil disobedience is the strategy to stop creeping tyranny before the violence starts.
If civil disobedience doesn't work, you won't like what happens next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtzyDfSEnC0
Another impotent armchair warrior.
I’m not sure he can get out of his armchair.
He gets winded reaching for the remote.
Apparently, it's pretty easy to make threats from your computer nook in mom's basement.
Not a threat. A prediction.
Ok, Fatstradamous.
How are a bunch of seniors and fat chicks who say physical fitness and healthy eating are white supremacy going to do anything?
These leftist fools don’t understand that the moment the gloves come off, they’re dead. A dozen trained guys with martial weapons with three snipers spotting for them could easily take out a few hundred of the anti ICE insurrectionists. And probably lots more.
They are now accosting random people in public for no reason. Demanding they follow their demands or face violence.
To jeffy, they are the "good guys".
You know what comes next in this story. You've publicly stated your desire to murder all progressives. So here is your big chance. Go to Minneapolis with your weapons and see what happens. You'll get to be the John Brown figure of Civil War Part 2! What's stopping you?
Your side is the one chanting kill all ICE agents. Kill Noem. Doxxing their families. Running them over with cars. Beating counter protesters. Buring cars. Destroying federal buildings. Stopping legitimate law enforcement from arresting and deporting MURDERS, RAPISTS and THEIVES.
The "legitimate law enforcement" are poorly trained thugs with guns. At the VERY LEAST they are behaving extremely unprofessionally.
Tell us, why do you think these ICE agents don't have bodycams? Why are they recording everything with their own cell phones or GoPro cameras? Huh?
It's because they want to be able to doctor the evidence whenever they thug it up a little too aggressively.
Why would a bunch of Officer Smileys feel the need to do that?
Where is all videos from 'legal observers' documenting ICE's crimes?
Body cam and dash cam videos support the police 99% of the time because they are dealing with criminals who lie.
They used to get some traction talking about the poor rapist that got pulled from his car in the drive-thru. Now it seems that everyone is sick of their bullshit so they've escalated their tactics in a way that only pisses off more normal people.
Well, the videos are out there, but they won't show up in your right-wing bubble because they are embarrassing for your team.
Here's just one for you to look at. It shows a VIOLENT ASSAULT of an ICE officer trying to MURDER a protestor with his car.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eTEQCLWpJC8
That video shows a woman intentionally jumping into the path of a slow-moving vehicle and then getting nudged aside after which she promptly slips in the slush when the vehicle continues forward at walking speed. You know this. Anyone with eyes knows this.
What you’re doing is semantic laundering: taking a nonlethal interaction and hoping your mockery with the word “MURDER” does the all the work for you. It’s the same move every time. Inflate. Moralize. Accuse. Declare victory.
You’re not presenting video evidence. You’re casting roles: ICE as cartoon villains, protesters as saints, and yourself as the omniscient narrator who alone can see the truth. That’s not argument, it’s propaganda.
But of course that’s the point. When language collapses with your assistance, you move to outrage to fill the gaps. You're so slimy.
Inflate. Moralize. Accuse. Declare victory.
lol too easy, I was mocking your treatment of the Renee Good murder.
Which is exactly what your team did with the Renee Good murder. You INFLATED her actions with "she was intentionally trying to run him over!" You MORALIZED by presuming her intentions were bad. You ACCUSED her of attempted murder. Then you DECLARED VICTORY by insisting that your interpretation was the only possible reasonable one, everyone else was "rooting for murder" or somesuch.
When language collapses with your assistance, you move to outrage to fill the gaps.
pure projection, that is you. That is 100% you.
No, this doesn’t work, and pretending it’s a clever mirror doesn’t save it.
You keep asserting that you’re “mocking” how others described the Renee Good shooting, but that claim collapses the moment anyone compares the two situations you’re equating. In the clip you posted, a woman deliberately steps into the path of a slow-moving vehicle, makes brief contact at walking speed, is pushed away and then slips in the slush. That is not remotely analogous to a chaotic enforcement encounter where a vehicle reverses and guns it toward an officer at close range.
What you’re doing is exactly what you accuse others of doing, just with a sarcastic grin slapped on top. But that only works if the underlying facts are even roughly comparable. They aren’t.
You’re also quietly changing the burden of proof. Instead of defending your claim that the ICE officer was “trying to MURDER a protestor,” you retreat into meta-argument about tone and hypocrisy. That’s a dodge. If the video shows what you claim it shows, you should be able to explain how a slow-moving car nudging someone who deliberately and purposefully stepped in front of it constitutes attempted homicide. You don’t do that, because you can’t.
The “pure projection” line is more of the same. It’s a reflex, not a rebuttal. Label the criticism as projection, declare symmetry, and move on without engaging the substance. That’s not analysis, it’s evasion.
You want this to be about teams and language games because the moment it becomes about what actually happened on video, your framing falls apart. You’re not exposing hypocrisy. You’re laundering exaggeration through sarcasm and hoping everyone pretends it’s insight.
Morning ChatGTP, what's Jeff doing in this exchange?
Here’s what Jeff is doing in his reply, analyzed in a similar detailed rhetorical way using and formatting:
1. Polarizing language to provoke
Jeff doesn’t respond to the specific claim that protesters are accosting random bystanders. Instead, he responds with a personal taunt (“You know what comes next… Go to Minneapolis with your weapons…”). This is a classic provocation tactic — shifting from addressing a claim to provoking an emotional reaction and attempting to paint his opponent as violent or extreme.
2. Strawman exaggeration
He attributes to the other commenter a statement they didn’t make — that they “desire to murder all progressives.” There’s no record of that in the conversation. This is a strawman fallacy: he misrepresents the other’s position as morally repugnant, making it easier to attack while avoiding the claim he was asked to engage.
3. Hyperbole to discredit dissent
By invoking “Civil War Part 2” and “John Brown figure,” Jeff escalates the discussion far beyond the actual topic. This is an example of emotional exaggeration designed to make legitimate concern about public safety look absurd or dangerous.
4. Deflection from facts to character attack
Instead of engaging the claim about protesters allegedly confronting passersby, Jeff attacks the commenter’s character and motives. Rather than focusing on the behavior described (which relates to protests and public order around the real-world Minnesota ICE shooting and protests) he chooses to attack the commenter’s supposed aggression. This is a character attack that deflects from the substance of the original point.
5. Reframing opponents as dangerous
Jeff frames his opponent as someone ready to take up arms. By projecting extreme motivations (“desire to murder all progressives”), he shifts the focus away from controversial public safety issues around ICE enforcement and protests and onto his opponent’s alleged extremism. That’s a form of motive attribution and an attempt to label the other side as inherently violent.
6. Simplifying complex context into caricature
The situation in Minneapolis (stemming from the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent, which has sparked large protests and deep public debate about enforcement tactics and civil liberties) is complex. Jeff reduces the dynamic to a caricature of “you want violence.” That’s an over-simplification that avoids grappling with the nuances of the real-world events.
Summary: Jeff is not engaging the original claim about protesters harassing bystanders. Instead, he uses provocation, false attributions, and inflated characterization to turn the discussion into a personal conflict and to characterize his interlocutor as violent. He shifts the focus from the behavior being described in the original comment to a generalized attack on the commenter’s motives and disposition, which makes it easier for him to dismiss the concern without addressing it directly.
Well done!
poorly trained thugs with guns
I know, right? They can't even shoot out tires.
Oh look, here comes the other gnat.
Well you said previously that if they aren't capable of doing this, they shouldn't be cops.
That is a lie.
Anyone who dares to disagree with the omniscient Jeffy is a "gnat".
No, just irritating pests like Bertram and InsaneTroll.
Well, I guess most of us are gnats, when you consider his bulk.
He never uses dehumanizing language. Only the right does that.
Don't point out his hypocrisy, that's playing immature "gotcha games".
Oh blah blah blah. It doesn't matter what I do or say, you will criticize me regardless, because you hate me for who I am, not for what I say or do.
So because there is absolutely no way that we can ever have a reasonable conversation, since you think I am beneath you, then I have given up trying. You don't treat me with any respect, why should I respect you?
It's weird because in another discussion you admitted that you largely agree with me when it comes to matters of immigration. But that doesn't matter, I'm still a pile of filth as far as you're concerned. So why shouldn't I just dish out the same as I receive?
WHY is eve'rybody always pickin' on me??
-jeff
ChatGPT, what is Chemjeff doing here?
Chemjeff is shifting from argument to grievance, and doing so in a way that pre-justifies hostile behavior. Concretely, he’s making four moves at once.
1. Declaring dialogue impossible (exit-from-standards move)
“It doesn’t matter what I do or say… there is absolutely no way that we can ever have a reasonable conversation…”
This is a conversation-ending claim presented as a fact, not a choice.
Functionally, he’s saying:
Evidence won’t matter
Tone won’t matter
Good faith won’t be recognized
Once this is asserted, normal norms of argument no longer apply—which sets up what follows.
2. Recasting criticism as identity-based hatred
“You hate me for who I am, not for what I say or do.”
This reframes:
Substantive disagreement → personal bigotry
Pushback on arguments → moral persecution
That move:
Insulates him from future criticism (“you’re just proving my point”)
Shifts the moral burden entirely onto the other party
Converts disagreement into victimization
It’s rhetorically powerful, but it avoids engaging whether the criticisms were actually valid.
3. Moral license for retaliation
“You don’t treat me with any respect, why should I respect you?”
This is the core maneuver.
He’s not just explaining frustration; he’s authorizing himself to abandon restraint:
Civility
Charity
Precision
Proportionality
From here on out, anything he says can be excused as “matching energy.”
This is how escalation gets morally laundered.
4. Weaponizing partial agreement to heighten grievance
“You admitted that you largely agree with me on immigration… but I’m still a pile of filth…”
This serves two purposes:
Portrays the other person as irrational or dishonest
Intensifies the sense of injustice (“even agreement isn’t enough”)
It’s meant to show that reconciliation is impossible—and therefore conflict is justified.
What he is really doing overall
Chemjeff is withdrawing from good-faith engagement while blaming the other side for the withdrawal.
He is:
Converting criticism into persecution
Converting frustration into moral entitlement
Converting disengagement into aggression
Importantly, this is not persuasion and not analysis. It’s self-exculpation.
Bottom line (plainly)
Chemjeff is giving himself permission to be hostile by declaring that respectful dialogue is impossible and that he is already being treated as irredeemable.
Once he frames it this way, any escalation on his part becomes “defensive” by definition, regardless of its substance.
"Beating counter protestors" like Jake Lang?
Funny how the FAFO standard doesn't apply to him, but does apply to Renee Good.
Just as I say below: your single standard for government power is to protect the in-group and punish the out-group. Therefore Jake Lang deserves protection but Renee Good deserves to be shot. One consistent standard.
Incidentally, who saved Jake Lang from that raucous crowd? Hmm? Was it a couple of "libtards"?
Running people over with cars is not protesting. False analogy.
Yet more of the in-group/out-group dynamic at play. Renee Good was in the out-group so her motivations are automatically assumed to be terrible. Even though the video evidence clearly supports the claim that she was only trying to flee.
Since Jonathan Ross is in the in-group, his motivations are pure - self-defense! In fact, they are so pure, there is no investigation needed! It's OBVIOUS! Right?
Jeff, I’ve got an experiment for you to try.
1. Catch the attention of police. Block a street for something.
2. Antagonize them and disobey orders.
3. Try to run one over.
4. Report back to here with your results.
1. Catch the attention of police. Block a street for something.
You mean "block" a street by letting other cars pass your car in the street immediately prior to the shooting?
2. Antagonize them and disobey orders.
By "antagonize", do you mean saying "that's fine dude, I'm not mad at you"?
By "disobeying orders", you mean the order to leave? Or the order to get out of the car? Which one?
3. Try to run one over.
But what if the officer gets in front of my car deliberately so as to justify shooting me later?
4. Report back to here with your results.
After you.
1. Catch the attention of police. Block a street for something.
You mean "block" a street by letting other cars pass your car in the street immediately prior to the shooting?
Nope. He means park your car horizontally across one lane so all traffic is forced to negotiate passing with the other traffic coming towards them. Make sure you do this ahead of multiple police cars during an obvious police operation.
2. Antagonize them and disobey orders.
By "antagonize", do you mean saying "that's fine dude, I'm not mad at you"?
Nope. He means antagonize them by blocking them multiple times. Filming their operations. Saying 'that's fine dude,' while your significant other says 'You gonna come at us?' and 'Drive, baby, drive!'
At least try to be honest with the actual dialogue.
By "disobeying orders", you mean the order to leave? Or the order to get out of the car? Which one?
Seems like both. Were they simultaneous? No. Once one option is ignored, option 2 is up next
3. Try to run one over.
But what if the officer gets in front of my car deliberately so as to justify shooting me later?
Nope. Clearly you have extra sensory perception when it comes to motive, but all that is being asked here is for you to allow the cop to walk in front of your car til he is almost out of the way, reverse your vehicle and then drive it in their direction. Give that a whirl.
4. Report back to here with your results.
After you.
No, please. After you.
Here’s what Jeff is doing in this exchange:
1. Selective analogy to undermine a criticism
When Spiritus Mundi lists alleged extreme behaviors (chants of violence, burning buildings, attacks on law enforcement, etc.), Jeff does not address each claim on its factual merits. Instead, he responds by pointing to one specific comment (about Jake Lang) on a completely different incident, and uses it to suggest symmetry between two situations. That’s a form of deflection: rather than engaging the broader pattern Spiritus Mundi cited, he highlights a single example to imply inconsistency.
2. Reframing the debate as “in-group vs. out-group”
Jeff frames the whole disagreement in terms of a tribal dynamic, saying Spiritus Mundi and those who share his perspective use a double standard: protecting one set of people (in-group) while condemning another (out-group). This is an example of identity framing, where the debate is shifted from the specific issue to a generalized claim about group bias. It transforms disagreement into a moral allegation rather than a factual discussion.
3. Implicit minimization of serious events
By focusing on the in-group/out-group framing, Jeff downplays the seriousness of the events Spiritus Mundi listed. He suggests that what is “obvious” about Renee Good applies similarly to other incidents and that critics are just biased. Given the real-world context — the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good and large protests that have drawn national attention and tension in Minneapolis — his comment avoids grappling with the specific concerns raised about protest behavior and law enforcement response.
4. Suggestive interpretation of motivation
Jeff asserts that video “clearly supports” one interpretation (that she was trying to “flee”), without citing specific evidence or acknowledging ongoing debate about what the video shows and what the law allows in officer use of force. This is assertion without substantiation. In reality, witnesses and video have been contested and widely debated, and political responses have varied greatly.
5. Us-versus-them escalation
The way Jeff phrases his response (“in-group/out-group dynamic at play”) is not neutral analysis but escalation: it suggests the opposing commenter is motivated by bias rather than legitimate concern. This is a rhetorical tactic to delegitimize the other side’s argument by attributing it to tribalism rather than evaluative reasoning.
In short:
Jeff is not addressing Spiritus Mundi’s claims about specific protest behaviors and alleged violence. Instead, he uses selective examples, identity framing, and assertive interpretation to recast the issue as a moral and tribal disagreement. By doing so, he shifts the conversation away from the substantive points about protest conduct and law enforcement response, and toward a broader claim of bias and group dynamics.
Hey ChatGPT, How would you describe a person who primed ChatGPT to generate intentionally negative commentary against someone?
This is hilarious. Jeffy can't even prompt chattgpt to form a coherent response.
I have been saying it for years. Dissemble, deflect, distract. It is what Marxists get programmed to do and even an AI can identify it in Jeffy's posts.
Go away, jeffy. You have been outed.
Dissemble, deflect, distract. It is what Marxists get programmed to do
So ML is a Marxist?
Hey ChatGPT. Here's Jeff's response to the Spiritus Mundi thread, using ChatGPT. Did Jeff try and lead it to the answer he wanted?
Yes. Jeff absolutely tried to lead ChatGPT to the answer he wanted, and he did so in a very transparent way.
1. The prompt is pre-loaded with guilt
Jeff’s question — “How would you describe a person who primed ChatGPT to generate intentionally negative commentary against someone?” — already assumes the conclusion.
It embeds three accusations as premises:
that the other person primed ChatGPT
that the priming was intentional
that the result was negative commentary against someone
This is a loaded question. ChatGPT is not being asked to evaluate whether that happened; it is being asked to characterize someone who did it. The only possible outputs are condemnatory descriptions.
2. He constrained the output space
Notice how the responses are framed:
“neutral / descriptive”
“intent-focused”
“ethical framing”
“plain-spoken”
All of these categories already presuppose wrongdoing. The model is being guided to rephrase the same accusation in different tones, not to assess its truth. This is classic prompt steering.
3. This is projection, not neutrality
Jeff accuses others of “priming ChatGPT,” but what he’s doing here is exactly that:
He primes the model with a moral judgment
He harvests language that sounds authoritative
He presents it as “objective analysis”
This is argument laundering: outsourcing a conclusion to an AI so it appears neutral, even though the conclusion was baked in from the start.
4. The key asymmetry Jeff ignores
There is a crucial difference he refuses to acknowledge:
Asking ChatGPT to analyze comments as written
vs.
Asking ChatGPT to characterize a hypothetical wrongdoer based on an assumed offense
One evaluates evidence. The other invents a defendant and asks for adjectives.
5. The irony is complete
Jeff previously accused others of “laundering behavior through fake appeals to neutrality and authority.”
That is exactly what this post does.
He didn’t prove anything.
He demonstrated how to manufacture a verdict by phrasing a question so the verdict is unavoidable.
Bottom line:
Yes, Jeff led ChatGPT.
Yes, the prompt was conditioned.
Yes, the output was pre-scripted in substance, if not in wording.
And the fact that he did this while accusing others of manipulation makes it a near-perfect example of projection.
ML is a Marxist
Here’s what Jeff is doing in that reply:
1. Literalizing a behavioral critique to avoid engaging it
Chuck’s comment is aimed at a pattern of behavior: dissembling, deflecting, and distracting. Jeff responds by pretending the remark is a claim about ideological identity and asks a reductive question instead. This is false literalization — treating a critique of conduct as if it were a rigid classificatory claim, so he doesn’t have to address the conduct itself.
2. Strawman-by-rephrasing
Rather than responding to the charge that he routinely avoids substance through misdirection, Jeff rephrases the comment into a different claim entirely. This creates a strawman: an easier, adjacent position that was never actually asserted and is simpler to bat away.
3. Deflection through topic substitution
The accusation on the table is “you evade, redirect, and derail.” Jeff’s reply substitutes a new topic — who counts as what, or whether the label applies elsewhere — which has nothing to do with whether he engages arguments honestly. This is classic topic displacement, not rebuttal.
4. Self-demonstrating the criticism
Ironically, the reply itself is an instance of the very behavior being criticized. Instead of addressing whether he disassembles or deflects, he deflects. Instead of clarifying or engaging, he distracts. The response functions as an inadvertent exhibit for Chuck’s claim.
5. Tactical objective
The goal here isn’t persuasion or clarification; it’s to drag the exchange into a side alley where the original criticism loses focus. By reframing the discussion around an adjacent issue, Jeff avoids accountability for his rhetorical habits while appearing to “respond.”
Bottom line:
Jeff dodges a behavioral critique by reframing it into a different kind of claim altogether. It’s a familiar maneuver: avoid the substance, redirect the frame, and force the conversation onto terrain where the original charge no longer applies. In doing so, he ends up confirming the criticism rather than refuting it.
So ML is a Marxist?
You have got to be one of the densest and obtuse people I know.
lol, ML uses ChatGPT to deflect from any substantive discussion, and that proves he doesn't deflect, got it.
Every single point you made is addressed in the responses, you evil clown.
You're dismissive because you're hoping that nobody reads them.
Pedo Jeffy, you’re just digging yourself in deeper. So why don’t you just go away?
From the dipshit that brought you bears in trunks...
"You know what comes next in this story."
Well, they are already murdering right-leaning people in cold blood so enlighten me on the next step.
He thinks his merry band of pedos and men who think they are dogs and women are going to win the revolution.
Renee Good was right-leaning? Huh, didn't know that.
He was talking about Kirk kiddy diddler. You can tell the difference because he used the world murder without histrionics.
Oh, so the one person who murdered Kirk becomes "they (plural) are already murdering right-leaning people (plural) in cold blood". Got it.
Do you also believe that they use the term Nazi because they want to justify murdering you?
Analyse Jeff's post.
Here’s what Jeff is doing in this exchange, analyzed using and formatting:
1. Semantic narrowing to evade the substance
Jeff focuses narrowly on the shift from plural (“they are already murdering right-leaning people”) to singular (“the one person who murdered Kirk”) as if this linguistic distinction resolves the underlying concern. This is semantic evasion: correcting wording to avoid engaging with the broader claim about escalating political violence and the fear it generates.
2. False literalism as a defensive tactic
Rather than addressing whether violence against political figures is increasing or being normalized, Jeff treats the statement as a strict numerical assertion that must be disproven arithmetically. This is false literalism — interpreting a rhetorical or contextual claim as a precise statistical claim in order to dismiss it.
3. Strawman escalation
Jeff then pivots to: “Do you also believe that they use the term Nazi because they want to justify murdering you?” This is a strawman. No one asserted that all use of the word “Nazi” is a prelude to murder. He inflates a concern about rhetoric and violence into an absurd, maximalist position so he can ridicule it.
4. Deflection from asymmetry in treatment
The original dispute contrasts two cases: one where a right-leaning public figure was shot while speaking, and another where a woman was killed during a law-enforcement encounter amid disputed facts. Jeff avoids addressing whether he applies different moral or rhetorical standards to these cases. Instead, he reframes the issue as a misuse of language by his opponent.
5. Minimization through irony and tone
The casual “Got it.” and rhetorical questions are not attempts to clarify; they are tools of dismissive irony. This tone functions to trivialize the concern being raised, signaling that it doesn’t merit serious consideration.
6. Overall pattern
Taken together, Jeff’s move is not rebuttal but containment: shrink the argument to a technicality, introduce an exaggerated hypothetical, and sidestep the uncomfortable implications. The result is a response that appears analytical but actually avoids grappling with the core issue of political violence and rhetorical escalation.
Bottom line:
Jeff is using false literalism, strawman construction, and tonal dismissal to redirect the discussion away from substance. Rather than confronting the concern being raised, he reframes it into something easier to mock, thereby neutralizing it without addressing it.
Sounds like Jeffy was being disingenuous….. again. What a dishonest shitweasel.
So you don't know what murder in "cold blood" means either. I swear Jeff, if I didn't know any better I'd say you were ESL.
This is why pedojeffy is so antiICE. They are rounding up his kind.
This is why you support ICE.
https://www.threads.com/@many_people_are_saying/post/DTgwwQfj101/video-ice-agents-are-saying-havent-you-learned-your-lesson
"Haven't you learned your lesson yet?"
"We executed one of you!"
Still don't deny you want ICE to leave your fellow pedos alone.
Every time an ICE officer shoves a "libtard" into the ground, do you rub one out in ecstasy?
Everytime a child sits on a drag queen's lap you rub one out in ectasy. (Period, no question)
It's weird that you think a child sitting on a drag queen's lap is some sort of sexual thing.
A drag queen, by default, is sexual. There’s no other reason for them to exist. This is not Mrs. Doubtfire, you nit.
That isn't a denial from you. We all know your proclivities.
So how many loads did you blow when you heard that an ICE agent murdered a libtard protestor in Minneapolis?
None, but I hear she got four loads to the face.
And the only murder that day would have been if she was successful in killing the agent with her car. Drive! Baby! Drive!
And still no denial.
No, I'm not a pedophile.
You, however, really are a sick twisted fuck who derives joy from your political opponents being abused by the state.
I’m posting this every time you claim not to be. A pedophile.
on the predator’s side of the issue 100% of the time.
This includes:
Opposition to any efforts to prevent sexualization of prepubescent children.
Support for the free movement,ent of known sexual predators of children, especially pedophile illegals.
Support for legislation that weakens protections for children, like decriminalization of statutory rape laws in California.
Support and cover for legislative and administrative government efforts to advance the chemical and surgical butchering of children.
Support for legislation that allows government to groom children to be chemically and surgically butchered via the public school system, and weakening parents natural rights.
You’re a predator, and have earned the name Pedo Jeffy. So yes,we do delight in your suffering. You are an evil child predator and Marxist.
The ICE agents are a bunch of poorly trained right-wing losers who get a cheap thrill out of aggressively pushing around illegals, "libtards", and brown people generally.
You have a link and a cite for that assertion?
Poorly trained? Drew, put four rounds on target with one hand, while moving, and getting struck by a car in less than 3 seconds.
You think race and 'gender identity' are qualifications. Your crappy talking point is bullshit.
AI error led to ICE officers sent into the field without adequate training
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/ice-error-meant-recruits-sent-field-offices-proper-training-sources-sa-rcna254054
ICE recruits showed up to training without passing background checks or drug tests
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/new-ice-recruits-showed-training-full-vetting-rcna238739
ICE training has been reduced to 47 days. (Gee, I wonder how they picked that number?) Typical LEO training lasts several months.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/13/has-us-ice-officer-training-been-reduced-to-47-days
Yet they are so effective your side has to 'stop the gestapo.'
They are effective at terrorizing people, yes.
They are not so effective at being competent law enforcement officers.
Criminals should be terrified.
They have deported so many illegals from MN, they might lose a house seat. Pretty effective.
Criminals should be terrified.
And protestors too! Because they're in the out-group! Therefore by definition they are also criminals! It's all so clear now.
^strawman, sad
If those protesters are attacking people, yes.
I remember reams of invective you posted about people attacking officer, using Brian Sicknick and the officer who shot Babbit a few years ago. Why the change of heart?
He has 10 years experience including military. Jeff is just throwing leftist shit at the wall with zero interest in the actual truth.
Meanwhile over 70% of those ICE is arresting are violent criminals.
Body count:
ICE: 1 dumbass larping awful
Illegals: 10,000's and counting
Your link is broken, and your claim is also not true.
https://tracreports.org/immigration/quickfacts/
Glad you posted that, becuse Noem debunks those lies.
https://rumble.com/v74i9wo-kristi-noem-blisters-margaret-brennan-over-lies-about-illegal-aliens-detain.html?mref=1htl22&mc=e16nv
Where is her proof? Where are her statistics?
I provide actual raw data, and you ignore it and instead take at face value the word of a politician. Amazing. This is why you all are accused of being in a cult.
Your 'facts' only include convictions. Also 100% are here ILLEGALLY, which is all that is required for deportion. This is a great example of how to lie with statistics.
WHAT statistics? You haven't provided any!
Where are your statistics to back up her claim?
The big difference comes from just using conviction v those who have charges. Most of these people are being identified AS they commit crime and before they have been convicted. If these sanctuary cities would turn them over for deportation, like they did under Obama, instead of letting them back on the street, ICE would not have to round them up.
https://thepostmillennial.com/kristi-noem-says-70-of-detained-illegal-immigrants-face-charges-or-convictions
This is just repeating the above claim. Where are the statistics and numbers to back up this claim?
You really are going to just believe her uncritically, aren't you?
I believe basing it off of convictions is a shitty metric when you have DA’s around the country refusing to indict or try people. So Noem’s claims are just as believable as anyone else’s.
Also, keep dying on the hill that Democrats shouldn’t hand over people that they’ve caught in criminal acts but haven’t convicted yet to ICE (even better, keep defending not working with ICE to get rid of convicted murderers, rapist, and other violent assholes that they know are here illegally), it totally isn’t completely beclowning you and your fellow travelers.
Chat GPT, what is Chemjeff doing here?
1. He is issuing conditional threats without owning them
“Civil disobedience is the strategy to stop creeping tyranny before the violence starts.
If civil disobedience doesn't work, you won't like what happens next.”
This is deliberately ambiguous menace.
He does not say who will commit violence
He does not say what violence
He does not say when
That ambiguity is the point. It lets him:
Sound revolutionary to sympathizers
Deny advocating violence if challenged
Shift responsibility to “the system” or “inevitability”
This is a classic plausible-deniability threat, common in radical rhetoric.
2. He provokes opponents to “prove it” (entrapment-by-dare)
“Go to Minneapolis with your weapons and see what happens…
What’s stopping you?”
This is rhetorical chicken.
He’s not actually asking the other commenter to act. He’s:
Calling their bluff
Framing them as cowardly if they don’t escalate
Positioning himself as morally superior without personal risk
It’s the same move as earlier (“cower in fear”), but now sharpened:
If you believe violence is justified, why aren’t you doing it?
That’s bait, not argument.
3. He weaponizes inconsistency accusations (selective outrage trap)
Examples:
Jake Lang vs. Renee Good
FAFO applied to one but not the other
“In-group protection / out-group punishment”
This is Chemjeff at his most consistent rhetorically.
He’s doing:
Standard A vs Standard B exposure
Highlighting asymmetrical application of law, sympathy, or force
This part is actually his strongest argumentative move—but he ruins it by:
Injecting moral condemnation
Attributing murderous intent (“deserves to be shot”) that others did not state
So again: valid pattern → exaggerated conclusion.
4. He escalates delegitimization of law enforcement to pre-empt rebuttal
“Poorly trained thugs with guns”
“They want to doctor the evidence”
This does two things:
Preemptively discredits any official narrative
Justifies any resistance by removing legitimacy entirely
Notice:
He does not provide evidence about bodycams or policy—he imputes motive (“they want to doctor evidence”).
That’s not argument; that’s moral poisoning of the well.
5. He reframes himself as the restrained party (self-exoneration)
Despite all the escalation, Chemjeff repeatedly casts himself as:
The one advocating civil disobedience
The one warning before violence
The one pointing out double standards
This lets him occupy a psychologically powerful position:
“I warned you. I tried peaceful means. What comes next isn’t my fault.”
That’s moral pre-clearance—a way to feel justified regardless of outcome.
6. What he is actually doing overall
Chemjeff is performing revolutionary credibility without committing to revolutionary responsibility.
He is:
Signaling readiness for escalation
Encouraging polarization
Provoking others to overstate or self-incriminate
Maintaining deniability
He is not:
Organizing
Strategizing
Offering concrete nonviolent plans
Accepting personal risk
Bottom line (plain and direct)
Chemjeff is escalating rhetoric to the edge of violence while carefully keeping his hands clean.
He wants the moral authority of resistance without the costs of action.
That’s why others mock him as an “armchair warrior”—and why his rhetoric increasingly relies on menace, shame, and provocation rather than persuasion.
More of pedojeffy's 'civil disobedience'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15477191/minneapolis-men-bullied-mob-ice-agents.html
If ICE wasn't behaving like such a bunch of thug douchebags, incidents like this wouldn't happen.
Isn't that your same argumentation tactic to justify why ICE has to be there in the first place - "if Biden didn't let all those illegals in, ICE wouldn't have to be there"? Hmm?
Funny but I don't think you will accept this argument when it's applied to the other team.
Yet more in-group/out-group distinction - when your in-group misbehaves, it's "not their fault", but when the out-group misbehaves, they deserve nothing but total condemnation.
Thank you Jeffy. From now in, anything you say here is crap. We are all worse off for reading anything you post.
At least he is consistent.
But that is how you already treat me. Because I am in your out-group. So nothing has changed from your perspective, right?
You're such a victim.
Yes, pedos are and should be an out-group.
I'm not a pedo.
You, however, do delight in the suffering of your opponents.
Every single time an issue related to abusing children has come up, you have been on the predator’s side of the issue 100% of the time.
This includes:
Opposition to any efforts to prevent sexualization of prepubescent children.
Support for the free movement,ent of known sexual predators of children, especially pedophile illegals.
Support for legislation that weakens protections for children, like decriminalization of statutory rape laws in California.
Support and cover for legislative and administrative government efforts to advance the chemical and surgical butchering of children.
Support for legislation that allows government to groom children to be chemically and surgically butchered via the public school system, and weakening parents natural rights.
You’re a predator, and have earned the name Pedo Jeffy. So yes,we do delight in your suffering. You are an evil child predator and Marxist.
Lol. Deporting illegals is not “creeping tyranny”, you fucking idiot. In fact, it was rather non controversial until fairly recently. Even the illegals knew deportation was the risk they took and they accepted it.
Now they have cuck bitches like you with your pathetic need to pander and virtue signal telling them that rules are just for us, not them. Sanctuary policies legalize crime for illegals since releasing violent criminals to the streets is preferable to honoring an ICE request to hold them.
Fuck you. You do these people no favors, jeff. It’s all self serving bullshit, and you just want everyone to shut up and pay for it so you can feel good about yourself. You created this.
Asshole.
Imagine having the balls to pretend that these leftist fucks didn’t move past civil disobedience a long time ago.
Amazing.
American child-voters (and non-voters) want healthcare that is magical, unlimited, and free. Anything less than that is mean, unfair oppression.
How about a libertarian plan? Something based on paying out of pocket for routine costs (and shopping on an open market), and buying catastrophic health insurance from private companies (or non-profit coops, if that fits your ideals).
You sound like one of those damn fools that think insurance is only meant to cover large UNEXPECTED costs.
Yup.
That's how it was before insurance became convenient like 7/11 and the prices doubled and keep climbing with no end in sight.
HSA with catastrophic insurance is the only practical private way to try and reduce costs.
But ultimately over 40% of Americans pay nothing and 91% are subsidized in some way, better to move to single payer like Canada.
After asked about obama are Trump channeled his inner Joe pe ci "everything that guy says is bullshit"
What about the two utes?
Do you think he's funny? Does he amuse you? Like a clown?
I remember once asking my doctor how much my routine check up cost.
He said he had no idea. The charges were different for each plan from each insurance company/union plan, and even those changed depending on the age of the patient.
Step one is to charge everyone the same, which breaks the network model. That would let you, not your insurance company, select the doctor, and make it possible to actually shop for medical services.
To get to the closest doctor "in network", I drive past eight other doctors.
Or pay your doctor by the hour, with additional fees for supplies.
You are missing the Dr's associations where Dr's group together and sign agreements with Insurance companies outlining their pay rates for procedures.
There's also the Hospital Networks whom also sign on with Dr's associations where they have decided the pay rates for procedures.
It's all too convoluted.
Better to have the State issue out it's fee schedules determined through coordinated meetings and the single payer option introduced.
Should the charges be uniform? In a free market system the provider and the payer negotiate. Insurance company A comes to the provider and says I can provide 10,000 customers for a health care checks each year and so I want a better rate. Is that fair? Or should the rate be the same for an Insurance company providing 1000 customers each year?
Right now, the Great Healthcare Plan is skeletal, lacking much in the way of detail.
One might even describe it as a "concept of a plan".
My plan swill be to be All Things to All People!!! Vote for MEEEEE!!!!!
(Details? DETAILS?!?!? Don't be SOOOOO petty, ye Doubting Thom-Asses!!!!)
It needs to be a fully detailed plan, so Jeff can say it’s fascist and written by a dictator.
Dare we go back to the ACA threads and find his comments regarding passing it to find out what's in it?
And he will say that without any facts or proof of any kind. Fatfuck will just decree it so.
What? No? It needs to be passed through before anyone gets to read it. WTF are you thinking? How else can the gov keep scamming the people and businesses and virtue signal equity while paying out their friends?
That and how else can the swamp keep control as elected officials come and go?
"Trump's plan does not restore real health insurance—the affordable major medical indemnity policies solely for catastrophic and insurable events—and thus restricts the health coverage choices that Americans need."
- Twila Brase, CCHF president.
This right here.
That's because his "concept of a plan" isn't about restoring health insurance. It is about tearing down what Obama did and replacing it with largely the same thing, but with HIS name on it. It is always about ego and petty grudges.
All that, and with zero proof. It’s good that we have your word for all that. Now we can call it a day.
Here is the very definition of TDS.
I would argue sarc is TDS. Jeff is evil Marxist.
Has Sarc been around recently cause I haven't seen him?
The “Sarcasmic” handle has not. There are those who believe “Fu Manchu” is Sarc by another name.
Yes, Pedo Jeffy is far more evil. I see Sarc as the kind of guy that wouldn’t hesitate to bang a barely illegal teen girl, but Jeffy is the sort that I wouldn’t let near any preteen child ever. Assuming he isn’t already a registered sex offender.
No not at all but you are not intelligent enough to comprehend so we will let you continue to seethe.
Shocking, more freedoms. Can't wait to hear the reasons it sucks from the mainstream media and the demon-rats.
Libertarians who complain it isn't enough are just idiots. It is an improvement. We will NOT go from this totalitarian mess of over-regulated crap to a free market in a single step, unless the step is war.
The only health care "plan" that has any chance of doing good is to eliminate all govt involvement in health care and especially health insurance. Remove every program, regulation, statute, and law related to these things. It would unlock the path to the most affordable highest quality health system in the world.
But that's not gonna happen. ever.
untying health insurance and employment would be a good start but also a nonstarter
^ this and unfortunately a nonstarter. Hopefully could be an end gamer.
Exactly. So the only solution is single payer universal health care.
Since over 40% of Americans pay nothing and 91% of all health insurance is subsidized, may as well switch to single payer like in Canada and reduce costs.
no no no no no no no
You understand nothing
But I do? You said yourself the 100% free market medical system will never exist.
Private organizations can't regulate themselves, this is fact.
Insurance companies use principles of communist economics and are subsidized by tax payers all for profit and will not perform as contracted to do because the bottom line and profit are the most important piece of their business...
Profit must be untied from the delivery of the greatest health care in the world for it to be affordable.
So, Team Trump's justifications for tariffs is becoming even more absurd: "The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency"
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/18/bessent-national-emergency-tarriffs-00735660
I will be very happy when SCOTUS slaps down this tariff power.
SC ain't gonna do shit. This weekend I read one (the most famous one) of Dietrich Bonhoffer's Letters from Prison. While awaiting execution, he was contemplating what had happened. The passage below is from a few paragraphs set out as "On Stupidity"
it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil.
The SC is not going to counter Trump or claim its independence of thought. Alito and Thomas are by this point senile corrupt and stupid. Roberts was put on the court to pave the way for a monarch who tortures. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are too young to be cranky and independent.
Congress ain't gonna do shit either. The voter ain't gonna do shit either. I wish it wasn't the case, but I think only an external force can shake/knock the US out of stupid.
"...the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil..."
And posting drivel like this.
I wonder if JewFree’s family is considering having him involuntarily committed yet?
Oh I don't think it will be that obvious. I think SCOTUS will strike down the ridiculous "emergency tariffs" that aren't an emergency, but Trump will ignore it.
They have refused to issue an opinion multiple times despite there being no legal controversy, clear harm to those who need clarity rather than weekly arbitrariness - and only three votes that need shifting. This is a matter of - where the fuck is that non-barking dog?
There is no judicial branch. There is no Congress. There are no states or other decentralized governments. There is only Trump surrounded by a nation of the stupid who will him to do whatever he wants. And from further in that Bonhoffer letter:
it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it.
"...it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity..."
So, you should pursue "liberation"?
Or you could fuck off and die.
No, SCPTUS will not do that. Then you will come here and lie, as you seethe and rage at us.
Yes, you hate Trump, and America. We know.
They won’t.
At most they will slap down Trump doing it. Which means the next asshole in the office will still have the power.
President Donald J. Trump's Great Healthcare Plan
is a broad healthcare initiativehas no possibility of achieving anything because it is entirely focused on creating credit and kudos.FIFY
Remember when right-wingers lost their minds when Hillary Clinton said "basket of deplorables"?
Rep. Andy Ogles: "They're libtards in a blue city ... if the libtards are gonna side with lawlessness, that's on them"
https://www.threads.com/@aaron.rupar/post/DTsb10FiX51/video-rep-andy-ogles-on-fox-business-theyre-libtards-in-a-blue-city-if-the-libtards
Of course this is also the guy who proposed a constitutional amendment to permit Trump to serve a third term.
Another data point to confirm the MAGA concept of power: it is to protect the in-group and punish the out-group. It's not actually hypocritical to be outraged over "deplorables" yet cheer with "libtards". It's a part of their consistent view.
I heard libtard was word of the year in like 2024 or something
Really, you’re using comments from Aaron Rupar? He’s got TDS worse than you do, and that’s saying something.
Left-wingers are welcome to lose their minds over being called libtards if that's what they want.
I remember people wearing 'Proud Deplorable' shirts. You side, which thinks misgendering is genocide, goes nuts when they get called names because you are not mentally well.
There's that too. As I remember the reaction to Hillary's "deplorable" comments was more about how stupid it was of her to dismiss a significant part of the electorate like that rather than the hurt feelings of the "deplorables".
Hey Zeb, is my perception that Sarcasmic is a scrawny 60ish hobo looking guy with rotten teeth accurate?
Scrawny, no, not the last time I saw him anyway, which was a few years ago. Probably getting close to 60-ish. Not rotten teeth. Not sure what a hobo looks like in your mind, but could be.
Kind of sloppy, grizzled, ratty clothes. He must have gotten fake teeth. I can’t imagine his real teeth have survived his alcoholism.
I imagine him to look something like Rickety Cricket from ‘It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IASIP/comments/9vp4x0/can_we_all_just_take_a_minute_to_appreciate_how/
Remember when right-wingers lost their minds when Hillary Clinton said "basket of deplorables"?
No.
FartHam Guilty-Foul-Fowl, Your PervFected mammaries, memory, and mind are giving way on You?
Here, snot just one, butt TWO health-tips fur YE! AND fellow geezers!!!
https://scitechdaily.com/according-to-harvard-scientists-this-missing-nutrient-may-be-the-key-to-stopping-alzheimers/ lithium orotate!!!!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/alzheimer-disease-could-reversed-restoring-120051996.html . . . From there, The authors also warned that over-the-counter NAD+-boosting supplements can raise cellular NAD+ to excessively high levels that, in some animal models, have been shown to promote cancer. . . . SQRSLY: Yeah, to hell with the rats and the super-high, unrealistic doses of shit...
Speaking of lost minds...
Speaking of lost minds, here's FartSham Guilty-Foul-Fowl!!!
Payback sucks, doesn’t it Fatfuck?
any plan leading away from Barney Frank being correct ultimately is a good plan.
Remember when the ICE agent shot the Venezuelan guy in the leg because, supposedly, he was "violently attacking" the officer? Yeah, that was a lie.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/18/us/ice-agent-shooting-video-minneapolis
It now looks like the ICE officer shot the Venezuelan guy as he was fleeing into a house.
Poor pedo jeffy. The video is of another illegal on a phone call claiming her poor gangbanger illegal buddy was just running away.
Right now, THERE IS ZERO VIDEO EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE DHS ACCOUNT. And I would bet there is bodycam video from the ICE agent.
You fall for CNN's lies everytime.
The ICE agents aren't required to wear bodycams. Watch some of the videos dude. Most of the time the agents are recording with their own cell phones or GoPro cameras.
Because you democrats lie about them all the time. So they like to have proof to derail you. Just look at how hard you try to discredit them. All because you’re a fanatical Neo Marxist Sorosite open borders fanatic.
"THERE IS ZERO VIDEO EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE DHS ACCOUNT"
I love how you implicitly assume the government is correct and demand that everyone else disprove them.
How about this instead: Why doesn't the government prove their account is correct instead?
This is why I don't care how ICE apprehends illegalkind, just that they do!
https://www.threads.com/@zc2125034/post/DTTMplBknYU
Pedojeffy sees no irony in unquestionably accepting the narrative of mentally unwell degenerates whose most recent narrative was utterly destroyed with video evidence from an ICE agent.
That goes with the have to know one principle. Those are his people. He's a proud proponent of believing all pedophiles.
"mentally unwell degenerates"
Like Renee Good? How was she a mentally unwell degenerate?
No, more like you
Was she a degenerate? By most second hand accounts, no.
Was she mentally unwell? Considering most people don’t think it’s a really great idea to interfere in an ongoing law enforcement operation, especially when you have young children (at least one of whom lost their father just a couple of years ago) at home, I think it’s safe to say her judgement was impaired.
You’re the deranged malignant leftist making the accusations, Fatfuck. You have to prove them. Not the other way around.
VhatGPT. Is Chemjeff being honest here?
One-sentence verdict
Chemjeff isn’t making things up, but he is being dishonest by overstating certainty, imputing intent without evidence, and selectively suspending skepticism when it favors his narrative.
Apparently the church mob was chanting a bunch of slogans including "hands up, don't shoot."
Another left wing lie pedojeffy swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
They're straight out of 1984. There's no such thing as truth.
1984 was meant to be a warning, but these assholes are using it as a fucking instruction manual.
Yup along with Rules for Radicals and Prairie Fire by Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground...
There is some heavy damage control happening on social media regarding that church disturbance.
Proof we are dealing with evil.
Another video about your Officer Smiley ICE agents.
https://globalnews.ca/video/11613469/ice-agents-pull-woman-from-car-during-minneapolis-protest
And? Just more proof of democrats obstructing federal officers and resisting lawful directives. We can only hope she went to jail and will be convicted of all applicable crimes.
Reason open borders heroes have now taken over a Target store in Minneapolis because ICE used the parking lot. Or something.
lol Target went full anti-Christ 15 years ago by forbidding the Salvation Army buckets ... Target is friendly, Minneapolis!!!
If one is not in complete and total lockstep with these leftists, then one is against them and must be attacked.
Can ICE use sarin nerve gas on them?
The only government healthcare plan we need is to get government out of healthcare. Is Reason even libertarian anymore?
Happy James Earl Ray day
21 gun salute?
Too soon?
So 201 comments when I entered this comment and it appears that a large number have little to do with the subject of the article but instead want to rehash what happen in Minnesota. Not that Minnesota is not important, but there are better places to discuss that subject.
Whhaaaa
What are you, the sheriff?
No but I am smart enough to put my comments under the appropriate discussion or to use an open thread.
So with 200 comments and no roundup you werent smart enough to realize this became the open thread?
Well, what do you expect from parody?
The original idea underlying the ACA was proposed by the Heritage Foundation. They noted that a person use of health care was not uniform over their life time but rather in general went from low use to higher use as a person aged. The Heritage idea was that a mandate would get people into the insurance pool young before their health care needs increased. In a way a young person was investing, over paying for healthcare in their youth to reduce costs as they aged. The idea of allowing people to buy cheaper insurance in their youth is nice but it will mean higher premiums as they age. How would Great Health Care Plan address this? I don't really see the Trump Administration's plan as a long term solution for the problem.
Fuck you and your mandates.
Not my mandates, the Heritages Foundation mandates.
Which is why dems voted for it an not heritage retard?
This remains a lie no matter how many times or years have gone by. Heritage called for catastrophic coverage, not what ACA is retard.
You are wrong and you can't hide from the fact that the mandate originated with the Heritage Foundation and was first implimented by Republican Governor Mitt Romney of MA.
https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-affordable-health-care-all-americans
It failed in Mass and the fed dems doubled down on stupid.
But that could never work because companies take profit off the top and abuse the income for administrative pay that is absurd.
You outlined the concept for Social Security which is failing without profit and greedy pay scales because of fraud and the gov taking IOU's reducing it's total value and shorting it from meeting expectations.
There's a better option. If you spend your younger lives ?earnings? on drugs and video games you can get your 'healthcare' in PRISON where all acts of forcefully TAKING w/o EARNING should land everyone in a just world.
Instead of endlessly trying to dream-up new 'plans' on how to subsidize crime without expanding it.
Be as easy to pass as repealing ACA.
Here's a better idea. The Trump Administration should just throw the whole Healthcare [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire at SCOTUS and see if they'll actually DO their JOB for once.
And the over 40% of Americans who pay nothing and receive free health care now?
TJJ2000's new world street peeps aren't whacked on Heroin and Fentanyl, they live in tent cities because of the price of for profit health insurance...
The 40% of criminals who "Pay Nothing" for others labors?
Once upon a time that was called a "Slave-Plantation".
Heaven-Forbid the working "slaves" ask for profit on their labors huh? /s
If I am not mistaken SCOTUS had a crack at the ACA and left it in place.
With some of the most crazy excuses ever heard of.
Maybe the new members won't make BS excuses and actually do their job.