Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Andrew Yang CRUMBLES After Anchor Calls Out His Healthcare Plan" video.

He lies more than any candidate not named Donald Trump. His signature proposal is a lie, because he keeps saying that "everyone" gets a thousand bucks a month, but they don't.
8
@kkorrupt89 He is just dishonest. He says "everyone gets a thousand bucks a month," but not everyone does. He continues to call his proposal Medicare for All when it is not. He keeps insisting that Amazon would pay the tax, but they pass it on to the consumer with a VAT. There is nothing about his campaign that is honest.
4
@ryanagahee5045 Those are all single payer plans that have a set period of time in order to eliminate duplicative health insurance. To pretend otherwise is incredibly dishonest, but support a dishonest candidate, and you start to make dishonest arguments.
4
@argenys Why do the poor have to give up theirs but the rich get to keep their mortgage deduction on their mansions with no limit?
4
@DawryMike They've always been about mental gymnastics. Even though the poor have to give up their existing benefits, they insist that there are no strings attached to the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend.
2
@argenys People who already get other benefits (there are 125 programs, but Yang has only bothered to mention six: TANF, SNAP, WIC, LIHEAP, housing subsidies, and daycare subsidies, and there was an NPR interview just today where he refused to state whether or not disability services count _in an interview where he talked about his son's autism_) who either get nothing or have to give up what they currently get. Therefore, not everyone gets it.
2
@Hoobyj Well, Obama started with a public option and ended up with the Republican alternative to Hillarycare that Bill said didn't go far enough. He had 60 Senators. Best case scenario for the 117th Congress is 53. So, why do you think Yang would succeed (asking for less than a public option) where Obama failed?
2
@argenys Itherwise, congratulations, you have made the argument that Milton Friedman made in the 1960s as a way to dismantle the social safety net.
2
@oshontheexperience6440 Well, I used to think he supported it, but realizing that he listed a public option almost from the beginning while still calling it Medicare for All is highly suspect.
2
@oshontheexperience6440 Agreed. As bad as I thought it was last spring after realizing for the first time what his proposal really looked like, and a few weeks later seeing The Humanist Report interview, it has just gotten to be an embarrassment lately. After the early states, he needs to get out and save what dignity he has left.
2
@oshontheexperience6440 It does seem like we lefties who keep looking after "free money" always find our breaking point with Yang ;-) Mine was realizing that he wanted to force the poor and disabled to choose. When I heard just how many programs he was really talking about, I realized that a lot of middle class people are going to be surprised at having to choose as well, because there just aren't 125 welfare programs strictly for the poor.
2
@chucki5047 His position was always to call a public option "Medicare for All." Like a lot of libertarians, he is a grifter.
1
@darrenfaber2334 If you don't have a timeline, you don't have a plan. You have a vague goal.
1
@argenys As he told Dave Rubin, his goal is to get rid of those programs over time as more people take the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend where it would be feasible to do so. Or, as Grover Norquist put it, to shrink it to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub.
1
@argenys Well, I thought the whole reason why we needed it in the first place was that there aren't going to be any jobs left in the future. If that is the case, you are talking about a future with a few trillionaires and everyone else living below the poverty level. Okay, let's talk stigma. Some people are disabled in one way or another, and they can't work. And while Yang did say at one point that RSDI would not disqualify one for his proposal, when interviewed by "All Things Considered," he refused to say how people would be affected who are disabled. And another example? If you have a single parent with two kids in daycare, the average expense is over $1500/month. So, you want to deny that single parent some extra money? Way to go!
1
A Oh So, people who have to give up their current benefits and pay a regressive tax benefit the most? That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
1
@bluesrockfan36 Okay, let's talk poverty. What is the biggest cause of bankruptcy in this country? Not having health insurance, or not having good insurance. Over half a million people go bankrupt every year because of that. Anything that lets private insurance exist in its current form is allowing this to continue. Where is Bernie? He is still opposed to regressive taxation, and he supports programs that in their entirety are worth far more than $1000/month.
1
A Oh Okay, so you are calling Medicare for All "free stuff" and the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend isn't? You didn't really think that one through, did you?
1
A Oh No, you didn't use those exact words, but this is what Yang is proposing. So, how will that help the poor the most?
1
A Oh I did do research. At first, I liked the idea of what Yang was proposing, but the more I dug into it, the worse it was. Oh, and what happens to most people?
1
A Oh Intwrviews, his website, studies about various UBI proposals, and his tax proposals. Of course you don't. Cultists usually do think that no reasonable people can disagree with the Leader.
1
A Oh And if UBI really happens, I and others like me will make sure that it is not a techno-libertarian dream that hurts the poor and leads to a future with a few trillionaires and everyone else scraping by on less than the poverty level for one person.
1
A Oh And as long as we are talking about personal experiences, my parents and my niece came to visit, and while here, we went on a couple of factory tours (Herr's Snack Factory and Tour in Nottingham, and the Martin Guitar Factory Tour and Museum in Nazareth), and in each case, human hands caused a bottleneck in production (finding rotten potatoes at the former, lacquering at the latter) where having a machine do it caused an increase in employment, and everyone in the lacquer department was retrained so no one lost a job. Automation can be done in a way to benefit the few, or the many, and giving up and just saying "take away all of our jobs and give us a little bit of money" is not going to benefit anyone.
1
@bluesrockfan36 "We progressives" don't support regressive taxation and a version of the UBI that was descended from Milton Friedman and Charles Murray that was designed to get rid of the existing social safety net. The difference between the two is that they wanted to get rid of it right away, which made it more obvious what they were doing, but Yang wants to do it gradually. Yes specifically told Dave Rubin that this was his ultimate goal. He told Ben Shapiro that he wouldn't increase it because "the magic of a thousand bucks a month is that it is below the poverty level for one person, which means that people have to work if they want any life of meaning" (emphasis added). Now, just like the other people who think they have crunched the numbers, you are forgetting one thing: a lot of poor and disabled people won't get jack squat. Here are some examples, based on the six programs of the 125 that Yang has mentioned that will force people to give up in order to get his money: 1) TANF in New Hampshire is over $1000 2) TANF in Alaska is $923 (and they don't forfeit their oil reserve fund, either), and it is over $700 in New York and California. Once you add SNAP, they are over $1000. And those families are probably also getting LIHEAP. 3) Daycare for two children in PA is over $1500/month, and those families will almost certainly get WIC. 4) Housing subsidies is well over $1000 in high rent areas. So, you want some poor single parent who is working to get nothing and then have to pay a VAT? That is the lefty objection to the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend. It doesn't help poor people, it hurts them. You think that techno-libertarian is a dog whistle? You're funny. It refers to a lot of Silicon Valley types who like to present themselves as lefties, but when you dig into their politics and their business practices, they are as libertarian as they come. So, what did you think I meant?
1
@argenys Why do the poor have to choose between the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend and their current benefits while multimillionaires get to keep their mortgage interest deduction, which costs the Treasury far more than welfare for the poor? And if your hero "trusts people to make a decision," why does he refuse to provide a full list of the 125 programs that people forfeit if they take his money? There is no choice if people are not informed. Why does he refuse to say how long someone forfeits benefits under the current social safety net if he really believes in choice? Circumstances might change, especially if he is right about there being no jobs in the future.
1
A Oh Again, people in Alaska can get TANF and the oil revenue, and it pays far less than $1000/month. They aren't remotely comparable.
1
@oshontheexperience6440 He never did. He always mentioned a public option, but now he doesn't even have that.
1
A Oh Become a better person by fighting to make automation work for people instead of just a very few. A future with a few trillionaires and everyone else scraping by on less than the poverty level for one person is not a sustainable path, especially if the rest of the social safety net is now gone.
1