He's not even stating what claims he disagrees with. In essence, he's not disagreeing with anything I said. He's just vaguely whining about me. It's spam and you should be deleting it until he actually talks about the topic. That's what hurts discourse; toleration of trolling and inane ad-hominem attacks.
I'm very clear about what I disagree with and cite sources as much as I feel is necessary to make my case. Considering that Key and Einstein are trolls who won't even disagree with anything specific I say, let alone cite sources, the amount of citation necessary is low.
The outside observer can see that I am clear in stating what factual claims I disagree with. The outside observer can see that I am clear when I find fault in another's logic.
I'm not going to cite sources for my claim that water contains hydrogen and oxygen unless someone disputes it. Taking the time to do that would be feeding trolls. I'll cite sources for my statements when people actually disagree with any of those statements. I'm not going to cite sources for every detail I mention because a troll vaguely whines.
You shouldn't use the phrase "fact checking." It's only used by dishonest hacks. If a journalist/blogger/academic says something, it should be honest. If it's a factual claim, that claim should stand up to scrutiny, or, upon such scrutiny exposing fraud, the journalist/blogger/academic should be ignored as the dishonest hack he/she is.
While all arguments over contested material should all have sources cited, what is contested is established by scrutiny and disagreement. In the absence of any disagreement, it's not even established what is contested.
I don't even know what I should be providing evidence for.
"When the health care law was passed, it required states to provide Medicaid coverage for adults between ages 18 and 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, regardless of their age, family status, or health."
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-my-s … -medicaid/
"Visualizing Health Policy: Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act"
http://kff.org/infographic/visualizing- … -care-act/
"Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, as of December 11, 2013"
http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indi … -care-act/
Okay, so I've established that the ACA increases Medicaid enrollment. I don't know if that was ever disputed--nobody was kind enough to actually do anything but personally attack me--there's just vague whining that I was wrong. About something. What exactly was a secret. But maybe they didn't know what HealthCare.gov says on its own website--that the ACA included a requirement that Medicaid programs cover more people.
Or maybe Medicaid's solvency was questioned? I said the thing would go broke and reimburse healthcare providers even less money for services. A silly thing to question, since Medicaid already reimburses healthcare providers so little that many don't accept it.
"Medicaid already suffers from serious problems, including perpetual cost overruns, doctors who increasingly refuse to accept patients covered by the program, and low quality of care. Expanding Medicaid will only exacerbate these issues -- while doing little to improve the health of the people it covers."
"Medicaid patients often suffer from constrained access to care. Technically, they're "insured" -- but they can't find anyone to treat them."
"That's because fewer doctors are participating in the program. Between 2010 and 2011, a staggering 33 percent of doctors decided not to accept new Medicaid patients, chiefly because the program's reimbursement rates are incredibly low -- and often don't cover the cost of treatment."
"Last year, less than 70 percent of American doctors participated in Medicaid."
"Consequently, current beneficiaries have difficulty finding a physician who will accept their coverage. Once they do, they may have to wait a long time to see the doctor."
"Expanding the program will only exacerbate this state of affairs. In Massachusetts, for instance, which launched an Obamacare-style expansion of Medicaid on its own several years ago, just 66 percent of internists and 70 percent of family physicians accepted the state's Medicaid plan, according to a 2013 survey. In some counties, just 30 percent of family doctors take Medicaid."
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_2 … are-access
Now that's a lot of material to support my unchallenged claims that the ACA expands medicaid and that medicaid sucks. If I do this for every thing I reference in passing in a post, my posts will be ridiculously long and convoluted and no third party is going to want to read it. This post is a demonstration of your ridiculous double standard.
I should only reasonably be finding, citing, and quoting sources to support references which are actually disputed. In order for that rational debate to take place, someone disagreeing with me will have to actually challenge something I say. Which nobody here has done.
The burden is yours to remove trolling spam posts from the forum which do not challenge anything anyone has said, but whine and attack posters. Remove those, and it'll be clear to all third parties that nobody is actually disagreeing with me. Just whining and ad-hominem attacking me, which is of course fallacious in addition to violating the forum's rules.
All that would remain would be actual challenges to facts and claims, to which I would respond as I did above to the hypothetical challenge to my claim that the ACA expands medicaid and that medicaid budget problems make it suck.
You need to make the forum better for third parties, not me. I'm only going to support claims that anyone challenges with citation and quotation. No third party wants to see me cite evidence for absolutely everything I mention. That'd be ridiculous. They want to see contested material supported/disputed. And that requires someone actually challenge something, which hasn't happened here.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
