Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Host: Bernie Sanders 'Will Destroy The Democrats'" video.

  1. He already has. The democrats are perceived as radicals because of Bernie. The best thing the democrats can do is run Bernie in 2020 so that he can get beat, badly, and show to the radicals that the people do not want socialism.
    3
  2. In the US it is radical. The system we have now is no better nor worse then single payer. So completely replacing it is a radical idea.
    2
  3. foehammer23, Bernie ran on socialism and rallied against Trump. The people voted in the opposite direction of him. Fact is that people do not want socialism except for millennials. When they get older they will change their minds as well.
    2
  4. Fredrik, if he is so popular then why did he lose?
    2
  5. Zedek, nothing indicates that Bernie is popular. He lost and many of the policies and politicians he endorsed in 2016 lost. Coloradocare, for example, had 80% of people voting against it.
    2
  6. Jonathan, again you try to challenge me and again you make it too easy. "We spend more per capita in regards to healthcare (Worse here)" Because we do more testing such as MRIs for example. Also, the main reason why healthcare is so expensive is because of government involvement. However, simply stating that we spend more is not an argument in trying to discredit the system. People at MIT spend more on their education then someone at Chabolt College. Now who gets a better education? " We cover far less of the population, before ACA, around 50 million off of healthcare(Worse here)" Everyone has access to healthcare. You are talking about insurance. Why healthcare insurance is healthcare is another issue. But as a whole everyone has access. In other countries not everyone is covered either as care is rationed. Even Bernie Sanders admits that. In the US it is impossible to cover everyone due to lack of supply. http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=jbel "- We have a far higher infant morality(Worse here, and even with your study cherry picking) - We have a lower life expectancy( Worse here unless you use the study you cherry pick) - We have worse outcomes with Cancer treatment(Worse here, and your study you may post is outdated) " Again, all not true. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Even at that when you look at the raw numbers the differences are minute. Take life expectancy for example. The US is at 79.68 years. https://www.infoplease.com/world/health-and-social-statistics/life-expectancy-countries-0 The average is at 72.13±8.57 years. That 8.57 is called the standard deviation. The US is above the average, almost one standard deviation above it. Several countries that supposedly rank higher then the US such as Malta, S. Korea, the UK, Germany, Ireland are all within the same range as the US. Any difference in life expectancy is simply noise. To say that the reason why the US has lower life expectancy simply because of healthcare is displaying a high level of ignorance. It is the same with all other data. Compare it to this. John Elway has less passing yards then Drew Brees. Now who is the better QB and why? " It's that our system didn't allow 50 million Americans to be on the healthcare coverage(Almost 20%)" 50 million people is around 15% of the population, not 20%. Minus your mathematical skills, we are again talking about insurance. I agree that is a problem, but that cannot be solved by simply going to single payer. In other countries they ration care as well because of lack of supply. We lack doctors, nurses, hospitals, researchers, equipment, etc. Again, Bernie Sanders admits to this. You agreed about the wait times, waiting for care on a waiting list is not receive care. On your commonwealth source "Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture." They admit their flaws. One the next one it is informative and the first time you posted a credible link. So congrats, there is hope for you yet. But it only looked at cancer and not all of healthcare. It has important information that is worth discussing. So I will give you this one. The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not done one in almost 2 decades. It compared the US and other larger countries to Malta and San Andorra. So 1 out of 3, there is hope for you yet. But again, that one only talks about cancer. "Or even looking at your study "The Buisness of Health"" I have, and I quoted from your sources because I actually read them where you haven't. You have to try harder then that.
    1
  7. "Actually that's completely false, not only did not link why its so expensive, but thats again 100% incorrect. " You have not linked my anything. But now you linked me Huffpo. I see a high level of ignorance how you are so quick to dismiss the book I give you which is written by two professors that cite all their sources, but then you just give me a Huffpo source and consider it legit. " That creates a middle man which increases the prices, this is why only 80% of private healthcare money goes to healthcare and 94% of the healthcare money goes to actual care for government." You have to be careful there http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/ It isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. "That is a massive argument, you pay far more and cover far less people, again thats a massive issue." Nothing indicates that we cover less people. Other nations just ration their care differently. That is why you have to look at total outcomes. When you do you see that the US is on par with the rest of the world. It is similar to K-12 education. On the books every state has it, but when you break it down you see that in some areas they don't offer classes such as AP courses or calculus and so on. The reason why is because of limited resources. So standards are lowered to say that those students receive an education. Or in my home state in how we increased graduation rate because we lowered the standard. With healthcare we lack supply. So if the government paid for all of it then yes, on the books everyone is "covered". But when the quality is low, or wait times are high then what have you accomplished? People dying in waiting lines or having their problems get worse while waiting is not fixing the problem. Just because you have low standards does not mean you win the argument. "Which by almost every single metric, we are far worst in." Again, that is not true. If we had a life expectancy of 60 years then yes, I will agree with you. But we aren't. "Again this is a moronic talking points used by conservatives that try to dodge the main point. In a country where insurance is needed(unless you are rich) in affording medication, surgeries, etc, then healthcare insurance can be used as health insurance. Because you can't get a tumor removed as a middle class person since you most likely won't be able to afford it. " I agree that insurance companies have a lot of power. But you don't solve the problem by transferring that power from insurance companies to government, especially when government caused the problem to begin with. You will have government rationing out healthcare instead. That is not a solution. Also, I find this ironic " this is a moronic talking points used by conservatives" when you say this "unless you are rich" again, attacking the rich which is a leftist talking point. Also, this is a leftist talking point as well " you pay far more and cover far less people" You have nothing but talking points. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion you have to support your points like I do and not just say broad statements such as "cover far less people" without realizing that other nations ration their care as well. "All completely true, even in your biased study that you once again posted since you can't seem to post anything else. We lose in infant mortality and only win in life expectancy when they cherry pick statistics and remove a massive amount of fatalities. " Well you finally posted links, but only one was a study that dealt with only cancer. Anyway, if you actually read that book it covers the data and shows that the differences are minute. It does not "cherry pick" anything but instead showed that with minor changes to the data leads to varying results showing how minute the differences are in the numbers. That is what you do in statistics. Look at this, if I were to throw an ice cube in the ocean does it change the temperature of it? No. But by what you are arguing it does. Technically it does, but in such a minute way you can't measure it. The same is with the numbers in healthcare. The data is so minute in difference that you can't say the reason why it is so is because of purely healthcare. "Does not matter, the point is we don't produce better results, thus our system is still considered worse in this category." Answer this question, is life expectancy purely dependent on healthcare? "Where did I say we only had a lower life expectancy due to the healthcare?" You are suggesting it is by saying we have an inferior system and that we have lower life expectancy. " I said that contributes to it which as demonstrated by ridiculous amount of studies," I agree it contributes, but so do many other factors. As that book showed you that I gave you when you remove certain variables you get varying results. That shows that the differences are minute. You just agreed with me meaning you agree that the US healthcare system in on par with the rest of the world. Again, there is hope for you yet. ". Again I never said it was the sole factor, nor did I ever even write that in past conversations. Again you are demonstrating your poor reading comprehension skills when commenting. " I am not demonstrating poor reading comprehension skills. I just demonstrated that you are contradicting yourself. You said that he US system in healthcare is poor and because of that we have lower life expectancy. Now you are saying that there are other factors in life expectancy. So how can you use life expectancy to determine healthcare system quality? Tell me that. "Actually I was speaking of an old study that had 50 million Americans off of insurance and was in 2004 so around 292 million which was 17% and why I said almost 20%. Again read slowly, when I said almost, I mean closer to 20 percent of the population." You never posted that study, I just read what you wrote and went off of that. You just can't do math. Sorry. "50 million Americans did not have access to health insurance but again you need healthcare insurance for treatment and surgeries unless you are rich." Again, it is impossible to cover everyone.
    1
  8. Part 2 "Again you keep using this phrase but apparently lack the critical thinking skills or mindset to understand we are doing the same thing. They ration based off of health needs, we ration based off of income and how much income you make. " What is a "health need"? Why should someone get care over me? I place myself as a priority over others most of the time. If I am in the ER and someone with a gun shot dying needs care then yes, they go before me. But beyond that what do you place as a "health need"? I need to get care and get back to work along with others who work and place themselves in a position to afford care. Why should they be placed on a waiting list while others who can't afford care go first due to some arbitrary system? Also, "health need" is vague. So again, look at results. When you run through the numbers the US is on par with the rest of the world. "However that means doctors need to take up more hours and more patients in the field. " So you want to overwork them? Also, what if they refuse? "Again another idiotic point, every study has its flaws. The study you posted stated it had limitations when asking feedback in the studies. However the raw data and points I listed, we come out worse every single time. " The study I listed gives their methods and citations for their data analysis. I don't see it on that commonewealth one. "I have quoted your source multiple times" No you haven't. "Every single link I posted has credible data, hard statistics and information that debunks your point. You have essentially posted a single healthcare study that has already been debunked 10 ways from Sunday and cherry picks like crazy. " They use the exact same data. If you read it you will see it. I am still waiting for you to debunk it as well. "Actually has nothing to do with it, comparing us to small countries doesn't mean us losing to essentially all other modern nations being false. " They are small countries with limited problems. It is a bad comparison. That is why the WHO did not do another ranking. "You have not cited a single credible study. " Yes I have. "The buisness of health has already been debunked" You haven't done it, you haven't even read it. "and doesn't even discuss healthcare for most cases " It looks at overall outcomes. You want to look at cherry picked situations. "Again 2 right wing economists are not the best choice when debating healthcare, get an actual credible study. " You cited HuffPo, a left wing news source. You cited the commonwealth fund which does not give their methods nor their citations. Also, what makes them "right wing"? It is because you disagree with them? But really, you cited HuffPo, and you are telling me not to cite a book by two professors? Really? "I mean look how pathetic your attempt was. So far you didn't cite any statistics, " I cited many stats. "The evidence still shows - We have a higher infant mortality - We pay more per capita than all other developed countries - We cover less people compared to all developed countries. Again your argument of rations doesn't change anything, over there they can have a chance at a procedure, here 50 million Americans alone have no chance due to financial restraints. " Again, you are looking at raw data. In statistics you have to analyze it. A difference of a few years in life expectancy is minute. You are a person who will look at ACT scores and see one person has a 32 and another has a 30 and will cry "the one with 32 is way better" while ignoring the facts that 1. that is a minute difference 2. there are other variables to determine if someone is a good student " You even admitted we had a lower life expectancy but argued it wasn't much of a difference." It isn't. " However all I stated was that we had worse life expectancy outcomes" Because of many variables. You are literally saying that life expectancy is solely dependent on healthcare systems. But you later claimed it isn't. So why use life expectancy as an indicator of healthcare system quality? " Every single claim I made, you failed to respond to. " I responded to all of them. " The only thing you did was cite the only study that was already debunked by me multiple times and was useless on the topic of healthcare for most points. " You cited HuffPo. You really have no room to talk when it comes to citations at this point. " Again every claim I made was accurate, " I am not denying the numbers you give me, you are just confused on what they mean. As I said, Drew Brees has more passing yards then John Elway. That is true. Now who is the better QB? "This is why I keep telling you, you argue with nothing but What if's" When did I ever argue with "what ifs"? You, however, have. " you argue with no facts nor understanding of statistics." I beg to differ. Remember, you cited commonwealth that does not give their methods. "Refute the claims or disprove them, otherwise you just wasted a whole lot of writing for nothing. The entire argument you posed was "But but but they ration!" Which we do the exact same thing." My argument goes way beyond that. Your argument is that life expectancy is only dependent on healthcare. But then you later said it wasn't. So I ask again, why look at it when talking about healthcare without some statistical regression model? "Go to school, get an education, understand reading comprehension and critical analysis then come back to me. Until then, your useless arguments that have no backing is rather claim-less." I am a doctoral candidate in physical chemistry. I am preparing to attend the TRVS2017 this summer and will be giving a poster presentation. You can fly over and hear me speak if you want. " Try not to look to pathetic next time." I will say the same to you. Cite something better then HuffPo if you want to criticize my sources. Also, you never did address my other source I gave. Why?
    1
  9. "- Acknowledges one issue in healthcare is due to the fact that we charge far more for drugs than other countries(Costly middle man). - Then openly states another issue is how much physicians are paid(as I have strongly commented on this before) Single payer healthcare would change both of these aspects and remove the other aspect mentioned which was patients being allowed to go in betweens plans which cost more." How will single payer lower drug cost without hurting R&D? And why would physicians take a pay cut? "-Then states a fix would be lower the salary but then claims the issues is they won't go into the business. Where is the evidence to demonstrate this? " That is simple economics. When you pay doctors less then there is less incentive to become a doctor. Why would doctors take a pay cut?
    1
  10. "Well first off, this is assuming applications would suddenly stop for medical schools. Right now, the percentage of acceptances for many schools is around 2-4% which is drastically low. To break it into simple terms, there is a massive influx of people trying to become doctors. Trust me, lowering the salary to 120k(Or around here) will not suddenly cause students to stop applying" Yes it will. " It sure wouldn't stop me but yes I realize many people who are entering are not as liberal with the idea" Almost all or they will be doing it already. "Secondly, you can add other incentives to remove that issue. Example, medical school is extremely expensive. The one I am attending is running me around 75k a year to live. If our medical schools would become similar to schools in Europe in the sense where tuition is paid for and we aren't drowning in debt, then its possible many people will be fine with a paycut when entering the field. " You pull out a loan, become a doctor, get paid a lot and pay it back. I don't see a difference at that point. "Theres other things you can do, but again the reality is many issues exist in our system and the delusion people have that suddenly no one will want to invent anymore is extremely false. This is because inventions are still coming out of other countries all over the world that don't have our system." The US is number one in research and innovation in healthcare and technology. "Very simiple, this is because right now Pharma has a huge control in the market. However the reality is, many drugs made in the market does not actually help patients. Many drugs I have learned about have drastic side effects and realistically when one drug is taken off the market for massive side effects, it just gets replaced with another similar drug. Thus the reality is many times our research and development isn't useful for patients, rather used to make higher profit margins. " I agree with that. Now how does single payer solve that? "Well again if you spoke to a physician or actually would listen to med schools and what they look for, then you wouldn't be asking this question. The point of going into the medical field is to help patients, help people to achieve a healthier life. I understand making a great income is extremely nice, but again doctors can still make a great income, just not as high. " I teach students working towards med school. It is expensive. They are not taking a pay cut for working that stressful of a job.
    1
  11. "I have linked you multiple studies(Common wealth, WHO, Cancer) and all raw statistics. You have linked nothing and I dismissed the books when I debunked them. I have already expressed the issues with their methods yet you keep saying I haven't expressed them." I have debunked them but here we go again Commonwealth: Does not cite sources nor give their methods. WHO: They were criticized so much that they have not made another ranking in almost 20 years. Also, it compared larger countries to countries like Malta and San Andorra. That is similar to comparing Emporia State University football to Purdue football. One is DII and one is DI, they are not comparable. "Here is the idiotic link I mentioned before and I will say agan, read your study! "We won’t settle this question, but we will point out evidence that even when you control for the differences, Medicare *IS STILL considerably more COST-efficient* . In one study, CBO found that privately run Medicare plans had 11 percent overhead, compared to 2 percent for traditional Medicare." Again...Read your study if you don't want to look like a high school student. " How about you stop acting like a middle school student and read the entire source "Not necessarily. As the insurance industry often says -- and independent experts generally agree -- the right kind of administrative expenses may actually lead to cost savings and improved outcomes. These include disease management, wellness programs and quality improvement programs. CBO notes that a heavily managed insurance plan may spend more on overhead but may end up with lower premiums and better outcomes, whereas a lightly managed program may spend less on overhead but end up charging its policyholders more, with less positive results. By this logic, a higher-overhead plan might actually be preferable. In addition, Henry Aaron, a health care specialist at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, suggested that over the long run, Medicare could benefit financially from having higher administrative costs in at least one area -- anti-fraud enforcement. In other words, measuring overhead is worthwhile, but it has its limitations." "Yes it does, having far less people on insurance indicates we cover far less people since you require insurance to usually get treatment. You keep trying to stretch this point but you look moronic because they are interconnected in this country. YOU have cited nothing to indicate otherwise. " Having to wait in line for low quality care while your condition is worse is the exact same as not being covered. I have a problem with my ear right now. I am seeing the doctor tomorrow to get it looked at while I do my physical. It should take around an hour. If I have to wait days or even weeks to see care because it is considered none emergency I could lose hearing in my ear when one of my jobs requires I have good hearing. Does that mean I was covered? "No your argument is don't allow a massive portion of the population to have an education. Again that would make the situation worse, in no way would it be better. " There are many people in rural areas that "receive" and education but can't do basic addition that you learn in 2nd grade. Even though on paper they have a high school diploma they can't do basic math. Have they received an education at that point? The same is with healthcare. If I have to wait for weeks to get care and my condition gets worse beyond repair, was I actually covered? "Again you have cited no evidence to demonstrate that waiting lines are causing deaths. However I can cite evidence to demonstrate lack of insurance kills Americans" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ Let me guess, to you Harvard professor Katherine Baicker is a "right winger" as well. "Pink do simple math, are we better in those categories or not? Either yes or no? You can argue not by much, but we are worse in the categories. " Let me ask you this. Do those categories depend only on healthcare? Yes or no. By what you are saying it is yes according to you. "Your solution is to remove government and give companies more power. How would that solve anything? " My solution is to give more power to the people. Because of the payroll tax if a business pays a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax. Instead they pay with benefits such as healthcare insurance. That means the people are restricted to what their employers provide. If employees received a higher wage instead they could get a plan that suits them and have companies compete which will lower prices and increase quality. Also they can switch jobs and not worry about losing healthcare. And insurance can cover expensive, emergency care and not basic care such as physicals like car insurance covers accidents but not oil changes. I want a free market system where we currently don't have one. You want a centralized system where the government controls care and we are at the mercy of them. We don't have a choice. "How is that a left wing talking point? You can't afford most procedures or medications constantly without insurance unless you are rich or extremely well off. Do you think a poor person or even middle class can afford constant chemo treatments which can run into 100's of thousands of dollars without insurance? At least understand what a talking point is. " I know a person who earned only $11,000 a year that had insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield and was able to pay for her chemo. It can be one. Again, nothing is ideal. I am not saying some people won't be covered. But your system wants to bring people down to cover the poor. You want to bring the middle class down, people like me, so some poor person can get covered. Why? I worked for my coverage and I want to use it tomorrow and will and will get quick service. Why should I have to wait for care just because someone who is poor is ahead of me on an arbitrary list? It would be great to cover everyone with high quality care. And if we can do that I will support it. Reality is we can't, period. "Go to my first comment, I posted over 6 links demonstrating all the evidence. " I saw 4. .
    1
  12. "It completely cherry picks because the changes are pointless unless they have reasons that are valid to remove them. " I gave you the reason. It shows that when you do a statistical regression on the data and make some changes the rankings vary. Car accidents and murders are not strongly connected to life expectancy. When you remove those you see a change in life expectancy in each country. Now does that mean the US has the best system? No. It shows that there are many variables that contribute to life expectancy and that any minute difference between each country can be for a number reasons and not just healthcare. As I said about the ACT comparison. A student scoring a 32 is not necessarily better then one who scored a 30, or even a 28. There are other factors involved. I scored 3 points lower then two of my friends on the ACT years ago. One failed out of college and the other graduated and went to serve in the military. I am a PhD candidate now because I had stronger work ethics then them in academics and pursued degrees in the STEM fields. There were other variables in play. You, however, is strictly looking at the raw data and tying it only to healthcare. "I have demonstrated nothing but statistically evidence and studies. I mean how the heck is that talking points? " You have not shown statistical regression models nor have to broken down the stats. Take the 45,000 who die a year. That is only 0.01% of the country. How many will die or have worse lives because of lower quality care in single payer? How much will production be hurt because of wait times? How much people suffer? You are ignoring that. Also, 35,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. Does that mean those 35,000 were on dangerous roads or in unsafe cars? Again, you can't just look at the raw data. You even said so yourself you provided the raw data and I agree with the numbers. But they are what they are, raw. Saying the US has lower life expectancy and saying that is because of our healthcare system is saying that life expectancy is dependent only on healthcare. In reality it depends on many variables. The data you are giving is empty. "I am suggesting that our healthcare plays a role in our system(a large one) and we have a lower life expectancy as evident by multiple people dying without coverage. You have yet to demonstrate ANY evidence, that people are dying on waitlists. " They do. You can find examples all over the place. That is why they end up with similar results in the end. If those countries had life expectancy that are 20 or so years greater then us the yes, I will agree with you. But less then 10 years is nothing in the big picture. Why do they get similar results then us? Why does Ireland only have a life expectancy that is one year greater then us if we have so many people dying prematurely? By what you are saying they should be blowing us out of the water. "The differences can only be shown if the reasons are valid which they are not pink. You don't seem to understand this argument as posted, you can't just remove points whenever you want in statistics and say "If you hold points this way, it gets better". It only makes since if you have statistical reasons to remove it(outliers for example) or valid reasons from professionals to remove them which they don't. " They have valid reasons. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean what they did was wrong. So I will ask you again Yes or no, is life expectancy only dependent on healthcare? If you say yes then you are ignoring other factors such as diet, crime, smoking habits, etc. If you say no then you are admitting that other variables contribute to life expectancy. Thus if we remove some of those variables and we see a change in the rankings then it is clear that life expectancy is a poor indicator in determining healthcare quality. So far your only argument is simply "they can't do that". Why? Why can't they remove car accidents and murders? Are they connected strongly to healthcare? If I am driving to work tonight and I get hit by a drunk driver and die at the age of 30 does that mean I had poor healthcare coverage? According to you it does. "Oh yes you are because you have confused when me saying a large variable is involved to a sole variable is involved. *Now you are saying that there are other factors in life expectancy. So how can you use life expectancy to determine healthcare system quality? Tell me that.* I said it has an impact on it which is large and you use other statistical information to make conclusions on the point. As evident by 45,000 Americans dying each year, by 50 million Americans not having health insurance, and by health insurance having a massively large impact on healthcare, then you can deduce that healthcare outcomes can be heavily influenced by healthcare. However most countries with higher life expediencies tend to have drastically different healthcare systems with far better results as demonstrated by the massive amounts of statistical data. " I showed you how that 45,000 number is deceptive. But again, if I die in a car accident tonight driving to work does that mean I have poor healthcare coverage? According to you it does. According to you all premature deaths are dependent only on healthcare. "This is false, you can cover everyone. The reality is you will ration based off of need so people with less drastic needs will wait longer than someone with a more important need." What is an "important need'? I feel my ear is important to me. Is it life threatening? No. But it could develop into something more serious. If I have to wait for weeks to get care and it becomes more serious then my production could drop. Now expand that to hundreds of millions of people. You are fixated on that 45,000 people and not looking at the bigger picture. Yes, 45,000 people die a year. But 1. you can't say it was only because of lack of coverage 2. does that require a complete overhaul on healthcare? And if so what will happen? 35,000 die a year on the roads. Does that mean we ban driving and only allow for public transportation? Less cars on the roads and thus less deaths. If you say no then you are satisfied with 35,000 people dying which is hypocritical in some ways as you want to completely change our healthcare system for only 45,000 people
    1
  13. "Health need is the idea that doctors decide who requires more assistance ahead of others. You know people who are trained in the field to understand the patient symptoms and diagnose quicker to save more lives?" So my quality of life depends on some doctor I know little about? Also, when do they assess my situation? When I first talk to a nurse? When I first talk to the front desk? How long do I wait there? "No we are not, we are worse in every single category.(Read this slowly, not saying horrifically worse in every category) " Read slowly. There are many factors that contribute to those numbers. So I ask again, are those numbers dependent only on healthcare? "You know what you sign up for as a physician, what do you think? You think I thought med school was going to be a walk in the park? You think I didn't know I would be studying all day and night with tiny breaks in between killing my social life? Physicians know what the work will be and that is their career. " That is my point, they are overworked already. So you want to add more work for them and at the same time tell them to earn less? "Any evidence to demonstrate this? Or are you just lying again? " So you feel it is valid to compare the US to Malta? "I listed multiple issues in the study already and you keep saying they are attempting to show multiple angles. How the heck would I refute claims in the study if I didn't read it? Again THINK critically " You have not listed multiple issues nor have you refuted anything. "Actually they cherry picked statistics, looking at overall outcomes we are again worse in every category. " Again, are those numbers dependent only on healthcare? If I die tonight by a stray bullet was it because my healthcare coverage was poor? I am asking this because everything you say suggests the answer is yes according to you. "I cited a ton of different resources, when speaking of Huffinton post, they were linking to my main topic. Did you not even read it? Here is the link you were suppose to go to pink" Why didn't you link that instead? Anyway, I still showed why that was deceptive. Also, I see no authors on that article. Who is taking credit? "They are literally known as conservative economists that made a study that was not only extremely biased(as demonstrated by multiple comments based on this paper). But didn't really even argue the issues with healthcare and then cherry picked statistics for no actual reasons to remove them. " How are they bias? And how does that make their argument less relevant? "it has been analyzed to deaths, again you keep hanging on to life expectancy. My point is we have worse results which can largely be affected by healthcare by multiple other studies stated. Such as 45,000 Americans dying each year due to lack of insurance. " I showed you how the 45,000 dying is deceptive. Also, you are saying that if I die tonight by someone robbing me and killing me in the process is because I have poor healthcare coverage. You are lumping me in with that 45,000. What that book does is remove some premature deaths to where that 45,000 carry higher weight. "You only remove statistics if there is a warranted reason to. Again the explanation he gave was useless since no professionals in the healthcare field actually would argue that is fine. Not to mention, over a decade old. " The WHO is almost 20 years old, so I guess we can ignore that. Also, healthcare professionals will agree with removing car accidents and murders as that gives more weight to that 45,000. That is the point. "No I didn't, I stated it plays a huge influence. I never stated "Life expectancy is worse which is solely dependent on healthcare". However healthcare(health insurance) plays a huge role in it. " How can you say a "huge" role? When murders and car accidents are removed then people dying prematurely because of low quality healthcare system carries more weight. "No you really didn't with any evidence. All you did say is "Theres a lot of variables involved" just like other arguments where you had no real evidence. Essentially you are dancing around the evidence. " If you are actually studying to be a doctor then you will realize how complex of a system it is. This is how I know you are not studying to be a doctor. "Actually I am not as I explained every single one and openly told you, the claims I made were accurate. All our results in the health field are worse, which is large due to healthcare field. I mean infant mortality is largely affected by the healthcare field and we are far above in this category compared to other modern countries. The only thing you latch onto is life expectancy because it does have many points. However - Infant mortality - Most expensive - Less people covered by insurance thus health coverage - And 45,000 dying a year due to lack of coverage Are are largely affected by this system. Again you have responded to NONE of these claims but with useless talking points. " Again, you remove murders and car accidents it gives more weight to people who die prematurely because of shortcomings in the healthcare system, such as people not being covered (the 45,000 to you). I suggest your read that carefully. If you include murders and car accidents then it weighs those 45,000 less. Let me use a simple model with 5 variables (there are more). Say you weight each way of dying prematurely as so Murders: 0.2 Car accidents: 0.2 Lack of access to healthcare: 0.2 Diet: 0.2 Drowning: 0.2 Again, only five to keep it simple. I remove murders and car accidents, the weights can be Lack of access to healthcare: 0.33 Diet: 0.34 Drowning: 0.33 What is greater? 0.33 or 0.2? "Again these claims demonstrate how poor your reading comprehension is. An example of your incompetence in statistical analysis would be you allowing the removal of a ton of points in statistics and saying its fine since it shows variation. Even though there are not statistical reason to remove said data points as you would in a statistical study. Again that is an example of that, seriously pick up a few books and practice. " There was a reason for that. I took advanced stats and in my research I do methods to remove other variables. For example, when I study coupling between two vibrational modes they can couple through bond or through space. When I do the finite difference method it considers both contributions where the transition dipole coupling only considers through space coupling. http://mukamel.ps.uci.edu/publications/pdfs/490.pdf http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp035473h?journalCode=jpcbfk I can find out which process carries more weight. In statistics you want to do that when you want to eliminate unnecessary variables. In this case we are talking about healthcare so you should remove variables that are not strongly influenced in healthcare. In economics when talking about the min. wage economists have done analysis to only look at low skilled workers and seen that increasing the min. wage has increased unemployment for those workers even if overall unemployment has dropped. By not removing variables you are saying that deaths by car accidents are due greatly to poor healthcare coverage, and thus that variable should be included in the data set. That someone getting murdered is influenced greatly by their healthcare coverage. That is exactly what you are saying. Ask any statistics professor and they will agree with the authors of that book. "This is extremely hard to believe since you fail in reading comprehension and critical analysis. " You were the one that could not read an entire article I posted. You also keep changing your stance on life expectancy. First you say that life expectancy is dependent only on healthcare. Now you say it isn't, now you say that healthcare plays a huge role but do not give a quantitative value. You are all over the place here. "Sure, what is your name and who should I attend? " I it is Cambridge, UK. http://www.trvs2017.com/ I don't reveal my name for personal reasons, but go to the poster session and try to talk about healthcare to some people. Many research topics there are related to healthcare. My work looks to develop methods to measure structure and dynamics of biological materials.
    1
  14. Again with the commonwealth source with no citations nor methods given. Look at the date of WHO, it is about 20 years old. "Read the conclusion pink, which is the exact same point I listed" Read the entire article. "This is again false by essentially every measurement. I mean what statistical evidence do you demonstrate that shows this to be true? You have listed no evidence what so ever on this topic. " I get it, you suck at statistics. If I get murder tonight it is because I had poor healthcare coverage. That is what you are saying. "You are stretching this argument to a ridiculous point. You are making it seem like people are waiting for months for a regular check up. Do you have any evidence what so ever to even demonstrate this at all? Please cite it or as of now, you have no argument on this. Again this is your "WHAT IF's" argument you keep posing without ANY evidence. " People do wait months. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html Remember, she just had a headache. "Yes which is due in large part due to the low local funding and overall structure of the system. " No, it is because of lack of resources. If no one is in the area to teach AP physics then it can't be taught. If you lack doctors people will not get care. Oh, wait, I forgot, you feel doctors will be willing to take on more patients for less pay even though they are not willing to do it now. "Again this is apparent by other countries who completely crush us in every category of education yet have a system that is completely public" The US has the best university system in the world, is number one in research and innovation in healthcare and technology, and it in the top 5 in productivity. What would you rather have? Good test takers or productive workers coming out of the education system? "Unlike myself who relies heavily on statistics."' Yep, because according to you getting murder means that healthcare coverage sucks. "Thats idiotic, the economists I claimed before openly state to be conservative, but non-sense is more than expected from your comments. Again the point was, if anytime someone could of received treatment but wouldn't of and died in the process, then you can attribute it to lack of healthcare. " You disregarded the points she made. "See another idiotic question, no nothing is absolutely affected by healthcare. But infant mortality for example is HEAVILY affected by healthcare. Thus us having a massively high infant mortality more than likely is due to our healthcare system. To argue something that has a massive effect isn't affecting our mortality rates is beyond idiotic. " What quantitative value do you place to say it is "heavily" affected by healthcare Mr. Statistician? You now have to give me a numerical value at this point and why. "I know person X do Y is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Again this is useless in debates, so stop doing the anecdotal evidence and "What if" scenarios. " You started with the what if stories. Need I remind you how? "No I want to bring down coverage to be equal for all and be dependent on your healthcare need. Again a system like this should NOT be for profit as demonstrated by the massive cascade of problems in our country. " Other countries face problems as well. "Because if a person could live while you have to wait for a day or two, then you should. Again you are really stretching the point of how long you should wait and the country as a whole is disagreeing with you pink. Sorry to say, you are falling behind on this argument." My condition getting worse means I am still alive, but am I better off? No. Sorry to say, you are falling behind in this argument. You have not given me any quantitative value in how healthcare "heavily" affects those numbers. You have not covered the fact that my condition, and others can worsen while waiting. All you care about is if they are alive. I really hope you are not my doctor. If I come to get my ear check by you then all you will say is "well you are alive, you are free to go". Just like that girl Natasha. She had a headache but was alive. Meanwhile her condition worsen, but she was alive. After months she died. But she waited because she was alive. If being alive is your standard then that is low. I want people to be alive, healthy, happy and productive. I aim high while you aim low.
    1
  15. No, I get it. If I get killed by a drunk driver tonight it was because I had poor healthcare coverage. You are pathetic. I have work to do. You can have the last word.
    1
  16. You can call a shovel an ice cream cone but it is still a shovel.
    1
  17. Purple Nurple, nothing indicates that Bernie is popular. If he were so popular then why did he lose?
    1
  18. Purple Nurple, 46% is less then 50%. Again, if he is so popular then why did he lose? And why did many of his candidates and policies he supported lose? " There is an actual ranking of politicians and he is number one. " No such ranking exists. Also, I don't listen to Alex Jones, he is a radical like Bernie supporters.
    1
  19. Purple Nurple, until I see some evidence I will not believe it. Again, people voted in the exact opposite direction then what Bernie supported in November.
    1
  20. "Sanders wasn't running in the general. And the election isn't today. " His candidates he endorsed and the policies he endorsed did not do well either. People knew about him then. "The people didn't really vote in the opposite direction." When you vote for politics that run on repealing Obamacare then yes, they voted in the opposite direction. It isn't just Trump, it is the fact that Republicans control almost everything.
    1
  21. "Why is Trump the most unpopular president of all time?" You really can't say that. Even at that being popular does not mean you are great. FDR was popular but created a depression. " How come when a majority of voters want a certain policy it doesn't pass?" Because the polls are wrong. "Why can't Republicans see that they are being tricked by the top 1% to vote against their own interest?" Because they aren't. The left are being tricked by politicians. Bernie Sanders lost and bought a third home. Trump ran on the idea that politicians are getting richer while the working class isn't. "Why do 5 people own the same wealth as half the entire planet? " Because wealth is total assets. A poor man in Ethiopia has more wealth then me because I have negative wealth because of student loans. But my life is better then that Ethiopia man. The reason why you have 5 people with more wealth then half of the planet because you have a large portion of the world in third world countries such as India or in countries in Africa who have next to nothing. And then you have people in the US with negative wealth because of student loans (like me) and home loans. The fact that 5 people own more wealth then half of the planet is not a bad thing. People need to understand what wealth before they talk about it.
    1
  22. "His policies poll very well actually." The polls have been wrong lately. Plus, 80% of voters voted against Coloradocare. People do not want the policies he is pushing for. ". For example naming of acts or policies. They don't say "anti-union" or "wage slave states". They call it "right to work states". " They are right to work states. They are not anti-unions are they are not making unions illegal. And slaves were forced to work. Stop using the term "wage slave". But Bernie is guilty of his appeal to emotion phrases as well. "Living wage", "fair share", "decent wage", etc. They are broad. When he says "fair share" why doesn't he say "a higher rate"? Also, he says they we have to "ask" the rich to pay their "fair share". We simply has to "ask", as if it is a request while we hold a gun to their head. But when he talks about student loans he says that are "forced" to pay them. Students, on their own free will took out those loans. You have to pay back loans. No one is forcing those students to do that, but according to Bernie someone is. He makes them look like they are a victim. But for the rich we simply have to "ask" them to pay, and if they refuse we still hold a gun to their head and force them, but he won't mention that last part. "Again you are missing why people voted for Trump. They didn't vote for Trump because he was opposite of Bernie. They voted for Trump because he wasn't establishment. " i can agree with that, and Bernie is the establishment. Also, what about all the other republicans? "FDR didn't create a depression. Hoover was president when the Great Depression started in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932, 3 years after the start of the Great Depession. FDR was great. Oh, and FDR was great." The recession started in 1929. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. In 1921 Hoover was asked to "fix" the economy during a recession. A year later he came up with a plan but the economy was recovering so the federal government did nothing. During the recession of 1929 Hoover tried to "fix" the economy with a stimulus deal and that prolonged recovery. He lost to FDR and FDR expanded Hoover's programs which led to a slow recovery until the War almost a decade later. FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  23. "No no no no. One poll can be an outlier. When multiple polls show the same thing, it's credible." The polls have been wrong lately though. That is the point. "Yup Coloradocare tanked. It was a longshot from the start. Many reasons for it. Misleading ads against it for example. The "anti" side outspent the "pro" side 5 to 1." So that led to 80% voting against it? That is a large swing and shows that people are not pushing for universal healthcare nor that it is a big deal. "Are you for real? The "Right to work" (Taft-Hartley act of 47) was/is anti union. " No it's not. "Do you also believe that unbelievable requirements for healthcare clinics that provide abortions are really for the "safety" of women? I mean, they don't technically make abortions illegal, just impossible to have such clinics open. " You can get an abortion at a hospital. People just don't want tax payers funding it. "Everyone knows that saying the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes means the rich should pay higher taxes. " Then he should say that. "Everyone has a gun to their head. It's called "laws". Thing is rich people have a much easier time to influence laws in their favor because of the monetary system of politics in the US. Money is speech. Ridiculous." If we had more local government then rich people will have less influence on laws, if at all. "Bernie isn't establishment. " He is a career politician with three homes and is in the 1%. He made a living as a politician. "FDR didn't turn it into a depression. It already was a depression. Recessions normally lasted 15 months. October 1929 to march 1933 is waaaaay more than 15 months." I agree, Hoover caused a lot of problems. But FDR expanded those programs making it last even longer. FDR is to blame. "Hoover didn't really do anything because he thought it was just a normal dip in the economy." He did a lot. " His #1 priority was bank reform, and the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 made sure the banking industry would be stable for decades and decades (until 2008). " Glass Steagall was meaningless for decades and the repeal did not cause the recession. " Isn't it strange that Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, and only 9 years later the banks crash and cause a major crisis again?" Not really. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ But again, what you just said I can also say about FDR. Under FDR we saw a slow recovery. Isn't that strange?
    1
  24. "What polls have been wrong?" Gallup said over 80% of people want expanded background checks on guns. In ME that law did not pass and in NV it only passed by 0.45%. Also, if over half of the people want universal healthcare, according to the polls, then why did 80% vote against it in Colorado? The polls have been wrong. "It only showed that the population of Colorado didn't want that version of universal healthcare. It's only a large swing if large swaths of the colorado population supported the bill to begin with." Polls consists of around 1000 people. I trust millions in a state over 1000 random people. "Taft-Hartley is anti union." How? "You didn't answer my question about abortion clinics. Are you seriously saying lawmakes in republican states are making it harder for Planned Parenthood and clinics like them because of taxpayer money? Abortions is only a fraction of what they do anyway. Seems you haven't even researched the requirements that make it harder for these clinics in the first place. Get the fuck outta here man." The question becomes should tax payers fund for a place like Planned Parenthood? Funds are limited. "He does say that. Have you never listened to Bernie? No, you probably haven't considering your retarded arguements." I listen to Bernie a lot. He needs to stop saying "fair share" and just be blunt about it. "Eh... you have no idea if more local government would reduce influence from rich people." I have more control over local government and if I don't like them I can change it easier or move and remain a US citizen. "Awww... doing the three homes arguement again? Doesn't make him establishment." Yes it does. He is getting richer while the middle class struggles. Trump ran on that idea how politicians in DC are getting richer while everyone else is struggling.
    1
  25. Bruce Wayne, you bring up Muslims when you talk about terrorism but we are talking about Americans. The political left is extreme right now, and Bernie Sanders is stoking the fire with his rhetoric of saying Trump is dangerous but with zero justification besides the fact that his cabinet is rich. Bernie's hatred towards rich people is not an argument. Fact is that the DNC realize how out of touch they have become with the common man. They want to become more moderate but Bernie is not allowing it. A good strategy for the DNC would be to run Bernie in 2020. Doing so will do two things 1. It will allow democrats to focus on local elections as Bernie's campaign speech is set. He will not change from his rhetoric. So democrats will allow him to do his little thing while they focus on local elections 2. After Bernie loses it will show the radicals in the democratic party that people do not want Bernie nor his policies. Bernie will win, at best, 10 states. He will get destroyed and people will realized that the fact is that no on wants Bernie.
    1
  26. "We will give all of you primitive Conservatives two choices. You can either become a progressive or you can fuck off." This is also why people do not like the left right. This whole "my way or the highway" attitude is what is causing people to vote in the other direction.
    1
  27. " Ever since the Divided States of Retards kept moving right wing politically, it has gotten economically worse. " The economic situation have become worse because of liberals deciding to bail out the big banks. "Even your so called "left" wing party is Conservative to the rest of the modern nations." No, they are radicals. " It's laughable and tragic that your own American neighbors die because they don't have healthcare" In other countries they die because of low quality of care. "The political left is extreme? It's right wing politicians who want protesters to be run over." No they don't. However, protestors from the left are burning down buildings. "As right wing as Obama and the Democrats are, at least they did something. " They compounded our problems in healthcare and under Obama we had less then 3% GDP growth. "The Republican Party is a bordering on fascism is not fascist already." So limiting the powers of the government is fascism? Where the left wants to give you "free shit" while taking away your guns. "ocal elections are what the Justice Democrats are after. " You have 7 candidates, good luck with that. " People don't want Bernie's policies? Then why the fuck is he the most popular politician in your country" If he is so popular then why did he lose?
    1
  28. "The economic situation has become worse because Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and Bush implemented his tax cuts." The Glass Steagall repeal did not cause the recession. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis The tax cuts did not cause the recession either. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. "If the Democrats are radicals, then what are the Republicans? " Republicans are more moderate these days. They can become radicals as well. As of now they aren't. "Not in modern nations excluding the DSR. We and the rest do have quality health care. " https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book on healthcare. "Republicans lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced a legislation that would punish non violent protestors." I have not seen anything like that. " Like drivers can run over protestors. People's assets can be seized if the protests turned violent. It doesn't matter if they were violent themselves" If you are in the middle of the road stopping traffic and preventing society from functioning then you are not peaceful. If you start a protest and it becomes violent then you are guilty by association. When the Tea Party rallied they got permits and did it in an organized fashion. On the left they block streets and tear up property. The left are acting worse then white supremacists. Recently white supremacists protested they removal of confederate monuments by gathering with torches. When they were told to leave guess what they did? They left. They did not burn down a building or vandalize property. They left leaving no damage. That is a peaceful protest. The left are acting worse then white supremacists. Consider that. " The problem with Obama was he implemented a right wing healthcare reform. It was originally the Republicans idea. " It was not a republican idea. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/ " Mine and other modern nations have already proven that single payer is a much better reform" Read the book I linked. When you break it down universal healthcare is no better then the system the US has. Both systems have shortcomings. That is not to say that the US does not have problems, it does. But completely replacing it with another system with just as many problems is not a solution and is a radical idea. This is why the left are radicals. You exaggerate problems that exist and want to take extreme measures. You see a nail sticking out and want to pound it in with a sledgehammer. " If you are thinking about the premiums, they increased because the government has no control over it. Only the for profit health insurance companies do. " I agree that health insurance companies have a lot of control, but that is because of the federal government and they payroll tax. Consider this with healthcare 1. why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? 2. why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare? Think about the payroll tax and what that does for companies and paying employees. Consumers have no control over healthcare insurance because most cannot buy their own plan because they are dependent on their employer for care. "At least understand the left's position before you criticize it. It's not free. It's paid by the taxpayers and in return it would benefit them." If it is paid for by taxpayers then push for a flat tax. Instead the left pushes for higher taxes on the rich to pay for those program. Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or do you want the rich to pay for it? Here is the thing, if you raise taxes on the rich, but don't for the middle class and poor, and then provide a service to everyone off of that revenue, it is free for the middle class and poor as they did not see a tax increase to pay for that service. So yes, it is free for some. " It can start by allocating money from defense spending" Defense spending is only 4% of GDP. We spend more on education and healthcare is around 1/6 of our GDP. " You won't be in favor of small government when your drinking water is polluted by corporations like those in West Virginia" Water is controlled locally. Local government is small government as you can control local governments easier. " I'm in favor of limiting government's power in NSA spying. Not for allowing corporations to steamroll the government and have the people pay the price. By the way, that's been happening for a while. " You need to control government. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local government is the greater ability you can see if it is serving you and your community. If not you can change it easier or move and remain a US citizen. Also, if you feel the federal government is corrupt and is controlled by corporations, then why do you want to allow it to run your healthcare and education? "Justice Democrats are still new. They're also not alone. " Justice Democrats are getting no attention. The Tea Party had a much larger support group. Justice Democrats are not going anywhere as the DNC does not want radicals in their party and do not need them. "Bernie lost because the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie. " He lost by around 3 million votes. In a primary that is a lot. "They closed the primaries to prevent independents from voting. " Which is what you want sometimes. You don't want outsiders who have no responsibilities towards the party deciding who should represent your party. The republicans allowed that and Trump won. "Plus Bernie was a nobody while the Clintons were celebrities." Obama was a nobody and he won. "You have the internet. You don't need to tell you this. Look it up. It's common knowledge by now." I use the internet. I am just smart enough to not buy the crap that is out there.
    1
  29. "I didn't claim that the repeal of Glass Steagall was the only reason that led to the recession. My main concern is deregulation" What "deregulation"? As Global Warming Skeptic pointed out, we have been increasing regulation for years. The EPA and OSHA did not exist until the 70s. You talk about deregulation but do not explain what. It is a talking point right now. Also, you need to read the sources I give you better. They said it was "at best" one of many factors that caused the recession. "Obama was the moderate one. " How? Republicans were voted in to oppose him. Obama was so out of touch with the people that the country voted in republicans to oppose him. "The Republicans kept obstructing him and prevented him from nominating a justice. " Obama already nominated 2 justices. The last president to nominate more then 2 was Reagan. "If you really think Republicans aren't radical especially right now, then you're so brainwashed that I can't help you." You have to give actual examples of how republicans are radicals. Right now you haven't. Let me give you some on how democrats are radicals 1. Climate change: Climate change deniers are a dying breed. Many on the right agree it is happening and that man is playing a role. They just feel that it is not a threat and that the federal government should not be given power to "fix" the problem (if there is even is one). But when that is brought up the left calls republicans climate change deniers. It makes no sense 2. Economics: Bernie Sanders won states in the primaries....enough said. 3. Gun control: We have gun laws on the books, including background checks. However democrats want to keep adding more laws after a shooting happens, even though those proposed laws would not have stopped any of those shootings. It is getting to the territory of taking away guns. Obama pushed for an executive order on gun laws but had no way to defend it. His only reasoning was that it could lead to a decrease in gun murders even though gun murders were already decreasing. I can add more, Steven Crowder does a great video on it. But right now the left continues to call their opponents racists, sexist, bigots, homophobes, etc. as opposed to having an actual discussion. When you opposed Obama you were a racist. If you did not buy into the gender pay gap you were considered a sexist. If you did not support tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood then you were considered a woman hater. Bill Clinton was a moderate and was willing to have a discussion. In 1994 Bill Clinton and Herman Cain had a discussion on healthcare where Clinton used numbers and data and at least shown concerned about his business. In 2017 in the Cruz vs Sanders debate Sanders was posed a similar question by a small business owner. Bernie did not show concern about her business, her income, finances, model, etc. He just said "you have to give them healthcare insurance". That is a radical right there. " You sent me that book before many months ago. We had a long debate which I don't want to waste time on anymore. I don't know why you're still holding on to it. Universal healthcare isn't perfect, but it is better. " How is it better? That book runs through the data and shows that the outcomes are similar. So how is universal healthcare better? " In your system, people die because lack of healthcare" In other countries they die because of low quality of care. Even at that you linked me the Harvard study of the 40,000 who die a year. Well, another Harvard professor had their take. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ I will add that 45,000 is only around 0.01% of the population. No system is idea. 0.01% is minute at that point, and you cannot say with high certainty that the reason why they die is only because of lack of access to healthcare. 35,000 die in traffic accidents a year. Does that mean they all die because they were bad drivers, or they were in unsafe cars, or on unsafe roads? "Guilty by association? That's an association fallacy. Also authoritarian. " No its not. You plan a protest it is your job to make sure it remains peaceful. "Again. The left wants the wealthy to pay their fair of taxes" Define "fair share". We already have a progressive tax code. Also, ever thought that if taxes weren't so high the rich won't stash it overseas? "The Republicans lowers taxes on the wealthy and raises them on the poor. " Not true. On your two articles the CNN one does not mention political party. On the other one they are talking about the consumption tax which actually taxes rich people more as they buy more expensive things (cars, more TVs, computers, etc). Also, consumption tax taxes visitors from out of states. My state has no income tax but has a higher consumption tax for that reason. We like it. It is not a tax increase on the poor. "The DSR still spends more on defense than the next 8 nations combined." Defense spending is around 4% of GDP and that has been dropping for around 20 years. But, on that 8 nation thing, let us look at the GDP of each nation, numbers in trillions of dollars 1. China: 10.87 2. Russia: 1.33 3: Saudi Arabia: 0.65 4. France: 2.42 5. UK: 2.85 6. India: 2.07 7. Germany: 3.36 That gives a combine total of $23.55 trillion for their GDP. Our GDP is around $16.7 trillion. When you put it in that perspective you realize that our defense spending is not that high because our GDP is comparable to those 7 nations' GDP combine. Just saying "we spend more then the next 7 nations combine" does not mean anything. I weigh more then 5 children combine most likely, if the children are all 2 years old. Does that make me fat? At 210 pounds I hope not. It is all about perspective. Just making statements without proper context is not an argument. "Progressives don't want corporations to run the government. That's why we want to get money out of the political system. I'm fine with the argument for a local government, but a strong federal government is necessary to prevent the states acting as their own independent countries" We have a system in place already. It is called the Constitution. It placed restrictions on all governments, including states. The set up was this The states ran the federal government and the federal government served the states, not the people. That is why there was no individual income tax but only a tax on the states. And why we have the electoral college. The states served the people and the people ran the states. That was the design. Money in politics is simply a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power. If it has limited power then it can't be bought. "Justice Democrats were mentioned by mainstream media and have applied pressure on the corporate Democrats" I don't see any pressure. " By the way, Bernie Sanders is registered as an Independent. " I know, then why should he represent the democratic party? "You're not that smart." How so?
    1
  30. Bruce, you claim I am not smart, but you are so quick to believe talking points such as the 45,000 people who die a year or that we spend more on defense then the next 8 countries combine. You do not put those numbers in proper context. You really need to think as opposed to just buy into appeal to emotion talking points.
    1