Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders' Rebuttal To President Trump's State Of The Union Address | TIME" video.

  1. Very predictable. Bernie bitched about the rich while throwing out numbers without putting them in proper perspective. Bernie lost for a reason, he has no economic plan besides attack the rich.
    33
  2. If you support Bernie you support communism.
    5
  3. Pats Typer, it isn't though. You may say you do not support communism but Bernie is just that. He wants a centralized government and wants to destroy the private sector. Look at how he acts around private business owners, he has no desire to actually understand their situation or how their business is ran. To him he sees a business owner and thus someone with money (which many business owners are not rich) that he can take from. If that business has to shut down he does not care. If you do not support communism then at that point you are not an informed individual and are just blindly following Bernie while he promises you free stuff.
    4
  4. The top 10% only earn 40% of the income.
    3
  5. I have a feeling that you, like others who made a similar comment that you made, would not be able to have an actual discussion involving Bernie's polices. Pick one and I will show you why.
    3
  6. People claim Bernie is popular. By the looks of the like bar he is, at the very least, polarizing.
    2
  7. Kelly Corcam, I agree. I don't even own a home while he owns three. The level of hypocrisy in this guy is amazing. I have no problem with someone owning three homes. But when he runs around bitching about wealth inequality and turns around and has three homes himself I cannot take him seriously.
    2
  8. Anthony, wealth does not equal income. Learn some basic economic terms before you discuss economics.
    2
  9. Bernie says the same things over and over again. At this point all you can do is dislike.
    2
  10. empac, Norway is more free market than what you think. No min. wage for example. Also, Norway drills for their own oil and has strict immigration laws.
    2
  11. Obama had a hard time passing Obamacare in his first year. Trump nominated a SC judge, passes major tax reform, and worked on cleaning up Obama's mess. It is year two now. He can focus on other goals.
    1
  12. Bernie does not understand the difference between wealth and income. Or maybe he does, but clearly his fans don't. When stock market prices go up of course their wealth is going to go up.
    1
  13. "what do you expect them to do? give their stock away to charity?" Bernie fans don't want that. They want the government to hold a gun to their head and give it away.
    1
  14. Bryant Fox, you have little idea what you are talking about. To start, Bezos started his business in a garage. He is rich because of the stocks he owns, he only earns around $80,000 a year in income. Next, you say "300× less than the salary of the CEO ". That is very deceptive. CEOs are paid differently than workers. I will link you a story from Harvard on that. Also, you are comparing the CEO pay to one worker as opposed to the entire staff. If you were to take the salaries of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread it to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will gain an extra $147 a year. That's it. At that point what had you gained by taking CEO's money? The workers are not going to gain that much more. Also, I did a quick, and simple analysis showing that the CEO of Walmart over the past 20 years is earning less when you compare his pay per employee hired. I do not have it right now but given time I can create it. But to briefly give an explanation with a small example, say a CEO is paid $1 million and hires 100 employees. Now say 20 years later he has 200 employees and earns $1.5 million a year. He earns 50% more but hired 100% more. That is a comparison you need to consider.
    1
  15. https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
    1
  16. " also it's not rambling if I am answering your questions and rebutting your ludicrous statements with facts about aforementioned topics." You say this and then say " It's very apparent that the work they do isn't valued by their employers and neither are they as human beings." You went to appeal to emotion. You are simplifying this issue way too much.
    1
  17. Bryant Fox, that is not an argument.
    1
  18. So many asinine comments. To start, those countries Bernie points to have no min. wage (except for Canada) and Bernie wants to double ours. Next, Canada and Norway produce more oil than the US where Bernie wants to get off of fossil fuels. Also, Bernie praised Venezuela in the past. As far as countries like Canada, Norway, etc. being better, the numbers are too minute to make that claim, especially considering their minute populations compared to the US.
    1
  19. "Do you think that it's okay that 90% of new wealth created went to the top 10% and that ANYONE at all is losing healthcare?" Only people "losing" healthcare is by choice. Now if you want to talk about the problems so insurance companies and how we lack a free market in healthcare I am all ears. But you have to understand the entire situation. As for wealth, reality is that beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Many, like me, have negative wealth due to loans such as home loans and college loans. Is that bad? I feel it isn't as we are so well off as a nation we allow others to regress before progressing greatly. The top 10% own a lot of wealth due to assets such as the businesses they run. How many people want to run a major business like Walmart? The Walton family own half of that leading to their wealth. That means the buildings, merchandise before it is sold, etc. The value of those assets is high in their hands because they produce a lot with it where in others it isn't. There is a lot to wealth inequality, but pointing to it does not mean the situation is bad. This is where Bernie is being very deceptive.
    1
  20. Sean Miller, single payer will not save money. Saying it will shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. The New Deal was a disaster as it prolong the recession. As for creating jobs, any bonehead can create jobs. You need to create wealth. You can create jobs by outlawing computers, is that a solution? Glass-Steagal was a pointless law which is why it was repealed. The phrase "living wage" is subjective and means nothing. "Free college" will ruin the value of a college degree. Bernie's economic plan is simply high taxes and destroy the private sector.
    1
  21. Shane, Trump won by connecting with the middle class in the rust belt states. He rallied there and they were people that the political left lost touch with. Being from the midwest talking to people from there that was the common theme, they feel democrats do not care about them.
    1
  22. Shane, you are right though. Bernie's immediate response about how much money rich people had. That is all he cares about, how much money people have he can take.
    1
  23. Lupee Ves II, difference is that Trump is not going around bitching about wealth and income inequality and wanting to use government force to take from those who are wealthy. Bernie has three homes which adds to the wealth inequality he is bitching about.
    1
  24. Look at the like bar, more dislikes. He is not popular.
    1
  25. Kelly, good point. He made a million selling his book that was sold in Walmart. He could have posted that book for free on his website but didn't.
    1
  26. "Equality of opportunity, not outcome. " You have that. Everyone has access to a K-12 education. What more do you want? You have to work in life. I can give you a million dollars but I bet you will go bankrupt very quickly because in the end you will refuse to work in life.
    1
  27. Being deceptive is the same as lying.
    1
  28. "$15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, tuition free college?" Those Scandinavian countries do not have a min. wage. Beyond that a $15/hr min. wage will destroy most of the country economically. Universal healthcare is no better than what we have now. We should improve the system we ave not, not destroy it to replace it with a system that is not any better Nothing if free in economics.
    1
  29. I give a lot of coherent rebuttals towards Bernie. His supporters respond with talking points such as "living wage" "fair share" "single payer" With no analysis. As a whole his supporters are fools that just want a handout. Most of what Bernie said can easily be debunked. But even if you do his supporters will deny it.
    1
  30. Mr. Pants, the debate against Cruz was a mess for Sanders. The best part was when a small business owner asked Bernie about healthcare and Bernie showed he has zero understanding how a business operates. That can be OK, but he did not care to learn either when she was willing to explain things to him. Bernie has nothing but talking points and appeal to emotion phrases. When pushed like he was in those debates he falls apart. It took a guy from Denmark to get him to admit that he will have to raise taxes on everyone. When that happened Bernie became very perturbed and starting talking about free stuff, literally.
    1
  31. "Yes bernie would have to raise taxes but you wouldn't have to pay a private insurance company so you will end up paying less" Not true. To start, I pay $0 in healthcare insurance as my employer pays for the whole thing. So I will be earning less by 1. higher taxes 2. no longer being paid with insurance Next, under Bernie's plan you are increasing demand without increasing supply. That will lead to much higher cost or lower quality.
    1
  32. "The debate against cruz just proved how much of a corupt s.o.b ted is.It's not a handout to want what every other modern country has." Just because other nations do it does not mean it is the best system out there. They have many shortcomings and as a whole they are not better than us.
    1
  33. "Most of those healthcare systems are better than ours by a mile" They aren't as they have many shortcomings. I will post a book on that in another comment. "People talk about universal healthcare like it's impossible but it's working fine in the rest of the civilized world." Saying it "works fine" is a very low bar to set. "Also under that type of healthcare you're employer wouldn't have to pay you're healthcare so it would be great for the economy." So I get paid less, what's your point? Do you know why employers pay with healthcare insurance? Because with the payroll tax, the tax Bernie wants to raise, companies pay a higher tax with a higher wage. " Under Bernies plan you decrease the cost of outrageous drug prices" How? How do you do it without lowering the quality? Remember, we lead the world in R&D.
    1
  34. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There is that book.
    1
  35. "You lower drug prices by negotiating" You expect the federal government to be able to negotiate? Also, what is going to prevent them from lowering the quality? And what does the federal government have to negotiate with? "Here in Canada people don't go broke because they can't afford treatment." Yeah, they die. "You guys spend twice as much per person on healthcare and get lower results." We don't have lower results though, that is the point. Read these papers. “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed “Measurement of surgical wait times in universal health care systems” Can Urol Assoc J. "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “   Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart   “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
    1
  36. With Bernie all you get are talking points. I have actually researched these issues. Bernie is taking advantage of uniformed voters. To claim that in Canada they get better results is simply not true.
    1
  37. "Being better in one thing doesn't make the American healthcare better thats like saying the bills are better than the patriots because of defense." Healthcare is a complex issue. I never said the US was better than Canada, I simply said Canada has shortcomings, but so does the US. The US does many things well, and overall in terms of outcomes the US is on par, at least, with Canada and other nations. That is amazing considering how none of them have over 100 million people. To simplify the healthcare issue like Bernie and you do shows a complete lack of understanding of the overall issue.
    1
  38. "Yes the fedral government should negotiate which is what we do in countries that aren't as corupt as America." Again, what do they have to negotiate with?
    1
  39. Great, one doctor. What's your point? There are many doctors that work in Canada's system. Why not get all of their opinions? Read this paper “International comparisons of waiting times in health care – Limitations and prospects” Health Policy Wait times are terrible in the Canada system.  As for that doctor, she does not cite any sources that shows Canada's system is better. Her saying they have better results is not an argument. You need to cite a source to give the viewers a chance to see how those numbers come about. She could not give an accurate number of people dying a year on waiting list meaning she does not care to look into the issue. However, she stated that 45,000 a year who die in the US. That number is very deceptive. To start, that is 0.01% of the overall population, a very minute number overall where again, every system has shortcomings. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Next, those individuals are poor and bad health, such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and smoking, all self inflicted, is associated with those in poverty. So the question becomes are they dying due to lack of access or because they are in bad health to begin with? This very point was brought up by Harvard professor Katherine Baicker. Later, Bernie asked asinine questions. Bernie asked if that PM of Canada is socialist. She said that the PM is conservative while giving zero examples. She said that no one wants to move to the American system. But in the US people do not want single payer as evidence by republicans winning on the idea of repealing Obamacare and 80% saying no in Colorado.
    1
  40. Saruman, that video did not give any data or evidence. It was, in the end, Bernie giving an appeal to emotion rant. What makes him think that people know and understand the US system? He give zero evidence except they live an hour away. That is not an argument.
    1
  41. "America spends more per person on healthcare " And we lead the world in R&D. That is expensive. From this paper “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed "Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US." Again, this is something I looked into. You are following Bernie who does not give any data or stats. He just goes on appeal to emotion rants. This is why people troll him.
    1
  42. How is Stephen Harper a conservative? Also, I read the CommonWealthFund ranking. My questions to you is what makes it relevant? Why do you trust it so much? Do you question it at all? Next, that ranking, like all healthcare rankings, are arbitrary. It ignores R&D. It ignores cancer survival rates. It uses overall life expectancy which is influenced by many factors such as health habits for example. You cannot just go off of raw data. A couple examples. One, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. If you were to do that the US would move higher on the list. Next, the US typically has high infant mortality rates due to having a higher level of pre-mature births and reporting infant mortality rates differently. You factor in those points the US infant mortality rate is not that high. The problem with these rankings like the CWF is that they only factor in the raw data and do not factor in other variables. That is why they are meaningless.
    1
  43. " If you remove murders and car accidents every country would rank higher in life expectancy." They did it for every country and when they did the US is number one in life expectancy.
    1
  44. " I could show you what the world health organization says about this.Almost every respectable health organization would tell you america is not the best in terms of healthcare" The WHO came up with their ranking almost 20 years ago and was criticized so much that they have not made another one since. I question the WHO when they compared the US, along with France, Germany, etc. to countries like Malta and San Marino. We have football stadiums that can fit the entire population of San Marino with room to spare, is that a valid comparison to the US with 320+ million people? Or even Germany with 80+ million? The WHO is fine for data, but for opinions in the end they are what they are, opinions. Anyone with experience in statistical analysis, including me, can come up with any ranking that can make the US number 1 if they so desire. That is why the only groups that come up with these rankings are organizations like the WHO as opposed to any academics source.
    1
  45. " But in the early 2000s there was no Obamacare so the system in place should have been better than todays according to conservatives." There were other programs such as restrictions of insurance companies from competing across state lines and Medicare/Medicaid and the payroll tax. Obamacare just increased government's influence in healthcare which made it worse.
    1
  46. "You use the 320 million people excuse but that doesn't explain why the us spends 2 as much per person on healthcare than most modern nations and can't cover everyone." No nation, unless they have a very small population (as in less than a million such as countries like San Marino) covers every. To say that that we do not cover everyone is expected as covering everyone is impossible unless you lower the standard to change the definition of "covered". I gave you resources showing that in other countries people have died on waiting lists meaning they were not covered. "Seriously how do you defend this people in America go bankrupt over healthcare." Because the alternative is they die. In both systems you have to look at the fact that the extremes are the ones the suffer, as in the extremely sick or the extremely poor. In other countries the poor do have the ability to get care for "free" essentially, but the extremely sick get screwed in the process with lower quality and higher wait times. In the US the extremely poor end up going bankrupt. They get care but go bankrupt. But in our system the extremely sick has access to high quality care if they need it. And this IS NOT about rationing on the size of the wallet as many on the radical left claim. Rationing is based on need and done due to lack of resources. Read the paper "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing of Medicine" Chest The extremely sick in the US has access to high quality care which is why our cancer survival rate is so high. And sure, the extremely poor go bankrupt, but in other countries the extremely sick die. There are arguments to be made on which system is better. But no matter what someone is going to get screwed, either the extremely sick or the extremely poor. In the US the poor has higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking , all self inflicted. Based on that I rather help the extremely sick considering it could be someone who was productive but ran into bad luck.
    1
  47. You made it that long?
    1