[hellotomyrars]

I agree by the way that a one line comment of “show your work” is not useful or constructive, much like your original one line comment. (I don’t mean that as a slam against you either, I appreciate that you actually followed up with additional information)

I disagree that I’m not responding to your actual argument and am specifically asking you to clarify the terms of what “worse off” means so that I can address it with more specificity or at least understand what you’re saying.

I still think citing an opinion poll to argue that people are happy with their employer insurance while also making an argument about how opinion polling is deeply flawed is a very strange way to back up your own argument.

I have yet to actually hear anything that supports the idea that people with employer provided insurance will be worse off because of M4A other than you saying they the way the costs would be less obscured means people would be more upset. This wasn’t even an argument about the real cost of M4A vs Prost insurance, it was just a statement saying that the money looks different.

[tptacek]

Sorry, I can't follow any of this. It sounds like you want to have an argument about whether M4A is better than our current system. I'm not a good debate partner for that.

[hellotomyrars]

I literally asked you what worse off means so that I can specifically respond to the claim you made, but okay.

Have a nice day.