I suspect physical size is commonly used as a factor in determining who should cell up together. Though I’m not an expert in how prisons work. It would seem to be a logical way to help minimize the chance of violence. At least in men’s prisons, I’ve heard from people that have done time that threatening to put a…

The people who think displaying pictures and slogans centering reproductive organs at marches or rallies is transphobic. Since reproductive organs are kind of related to reproductive rights. Or are you going to gaslight women and say that doesn't happen either? 

You’re totally correct. They do not think trans women are exactly the same as “women” or “female”. They believe there are formative experiences which begin at the moment of birth where our patriarchal society begins to oppress women on the basis of both their physiology and deeply imbeded social misogyny.

“The idea that one’s sex is immutable is based in high-school level biology, and not held by most professionals these days.”

Well, thank god the entire Democratic party both state and national threw their entire weight behind the pragmatic candidate Northam. Instead of the radical Periello. I mean, who could have possibly guessed that a man who voted for Bush in 2004 could have had racist skeletons in the closet? I wonder if the wild…

But you’re conflating sex and gender by saying a male person can become a female person. Their main point is “female” and “woman” are different things. So a trans woman can be a “woman”, but never a “female”. Thus the anger about things like calling abortion rights activism or wearing pink “pussy” hats to a march…

Wow. That’s pretty racist. You think Mexican people are physically different to American people? That Mexicans are inherently stronger and more aggressive than Americans? That’s crazy. I knew trans activism was getting extreme but I didn’t realize there was a strain of scientific racism.

They’re going to lobby, fight, and lie regardless. I think you’re not considering the broader issues that animate business opposition to government provided health care even from companies which have nothing to do with health care.

But that wouldn’t (or at least shouldn’t happen) if the program passed in to law then it would be lawful and operational until a court held otherwise. Maybe even until the supreme court held otherwise which could take years. Like with the ACA litigation. Litigation would not drag out the process of passing and…

Ok. You’re intractable. You are invested in being a fucking idiot who either refuses to understand or can’t understand the entire issue. Did you read any of the articles I helpfully provided for you so you would less stupid in public? What am I saying. Of course you didn’t. You’re too invested in being duped by people…

Why in the hell would they need to compensate the owners of insurance companies!? There’s no government “taking”. The insurance companies don’t have some property right in the American health care system. This would be a change in policy, like tons of other changes, that will “unfortunately” reduce our even abolish…

Oh no! You’re right! I bet you also vigorously opposed NAFTA for example because of the impact it would have on midwestern auto workers, their jobs, and their pension plans. We probably should never change anything ever regardless of the possible wider benefits since there might be a cost to the beneficiaries of the…

Because the “fix” wil be vociferously opposed by the issuance companies just as much as they would fight M4A. Any legitimate fix for private insurance, to make it similar to private insurance in Germany or Switzerland which are the main counter examples to M4A, would effectively eliminate profits and tightly regulate…

I mean, I guess you can envision a situation where right wing judges completely ignore all precedents and come up with a reason to strike down an expansion of a currently existing federal program. But the whole point of M4A is it is already admittedly constitutional for people 65 and older. What argument could there…

The lauding of the ACA while ignoring the huge gaps in coverage, the enormous financial burdens it places on users, the terrible design leading to (valid) political unpopularity, the bad ideological beliefs underpinning the entire system, and the brezzy dismissal of any other possible design choices as politically…

I mean, other than basically lead the leftward movement of the Democratic party on issues from health care to taxes to social security he’s done nothing at all. But I get that the rules for Bernie are different to other politicians who are feted for bravely following Bernie’s lead and co-sponsoring his bills. I mean,…

Nope. Wrong. It wasn’t an “assumption”. Again, the provider reimbursement rate is from the text of the bill. Whether that rate might cause a change in how much providers work is a valid question and should be called an “assumption”. But that’s not the dispute! The mercatus whining is about walking back their original…

Jesus. You fell for it. You listened to mercatus’s PR people via “fact checkers” when mercatus desperately tried to perform a do-over because their attempted M4A hit piece study showed total health care spending would be more than $2 trillion less over 10 years if Sanders’ most recent M4A Senate bill he introduced was…

The “one study” is famous because it was done with the explicit purpose of discrediting M4A, but did the opposite. There are many other studies by friendly or neutral sources showing single payer of some style would reduce healthcare spending compared to our current system.

The Mercatus center, a far right wing think tank did exactly that! And it came up with an amount that is $2trillion less than what we currently spend in total on health care.