In fairness, the article’s main premise is provided by the Obama administration guy who designed Obamacare — “according to Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology”.

and having government involved is somehow better?

“paying for other people’s stuff is how any insurance works”

ad hominem. always the sign of a winning argument.

“bent on making sure that they get every last nickel, even if it results in their children and grandchildren inheriting a worse-off world”

Dental care being provided by work is a relatively new phenomenon, and,

that “shark” is know locally as a dogfish

The problem with this piece is it conflates some moral choices with policy choices and views the world through a Manichean lense.

the Larry Fitzgerald comparison is superficial at best

i can live with a certain amount of defensive mindset designed to preserve the point — but:

I thought the input was pretty good, but some fallacies:

so — the Trump budget cuts positions by 7% (385 to 358) and its evidence of horrible intent

just a reminder:

“Let your kid mess up if they’re hellbent on messing up.”

as someone who has had to track, manage, etc the whole PTO thing — some employer’s perspective:

“Big government is the institution most suited to deploying the resources needed to fix most of these problems,”

you did use the words “approachable” , “relatable” and “honest” in refering to Hillary Clinton?

indy has decided to test the theory that a primate choosing names randomly can draft better than Ryan Grigson

i get the many student athletes choose that route — but i dont think they are forced into it

cost has little to do with it —