Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Billionaires Can't Stop Lying About Medicare For All" video.

@Chocolatnave123 , because people here can't think for themselves. If they did they would see that Kyle is full of shit. Healthcare is way more complex than Kyle makes it out to be. If you read the study Kyle points to there are way too many holes to make a strong conclusion on.
2
According to the study Kyle cited they will offer compensation for "just transition". They don't talk about people moving, how they will factor in people selling their homes, and buying new homes, and the influence on the kids moving and so on. They are basically treating people like pawns by saying they will simply change jobs and location and assume the market won't change at all during the process. In short, the far left has put almost no thought into this.
2
No it won't.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , it isn't that easy.
1
@jrsydvl7218 , Medicare for all proposals have an increase in the payroll tax meaning employers will pay more. Seriously, do you guys even read up on these things and think about them?
1
@TechGroupF430i , so you are saying Trump is willing to start out small as opposed to asking for the full amount? Man, seems like he is, once again, willing to work with democrats. Why do they keep refusing to work with him?
1
@jojoboko6990 , the Peri study
1
@b1bbscraz3y , it isn't. If it was than we would have done it. Take "tuition free college" for example, how do you account for the NCAA?
1
@jojoboko6990 , take, for example, how they handle people losing jobs. They have a section listed as "Just Transition for Displaced Workers". How do they account for the price of housing and it changing? Or people trying to sell their house? Or the price of moving? Or kids having to change schools? Or people who don't want to move? That is a major hole. They are basically treating people as pawns and will tell them to simply move to work another job, to change their life.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , employees and employers pay the same percentage. Employers don't give out raises because doing so will mean paying a higher tax.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , yes they do pay the same.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , the NCAA bases their divisions on scholarship limits. If you remove tuition than you remove the need for scholarships. So how do you account for the NCAA? How much do you even know about the NCAA? At that point I can assume very little meaning you have put almost no thought in this tuition free college idea.
1
@b1bbscraz3y https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I#Scholarship_limits_by_sport Look at scholarship limits by sport and compare to Division II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_II#Scholarship_limits_by_sport Now how do you handle that issue?
1
@jojoboko6990 , it is one thing if the market dictates what jobs there are. With the market the change is gradual. What Medicare for all will do is force people to have to change as opposed to the change being gradual. The federal government will be forcing the ending of jobs, and then force people to take on new jobs. That is the federal government dictating how the economy functions which has drastically unpredictable outcomes where they are usually bad due to investors refusing to invest.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I read the study. They hand wave the argument away. Also, what about kids changing schools and the psychological effects on that? What about people having to move away from friends and family? That is not considered.
1
@jrsydvl7218 , saying "negotiated or regulated" is a hand wavy argument. What makes you think the government has the upper hand in negotiation? If a healthcare company says no than people don't get healthcare. So government will have to pay a lot. As for regulation, price setting leads to less production. What reduces prices is competition.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you don't seem to have much knowledge on the NCAA. I worked in college athletics during my undergrad so I know a lot about this. First off, the athletes at larger schools are paid with a free education, free gear, food (mostly during season), tutoring, etc. Next, most colleges won't be able to afford to pay athletes because they don't make enough money. With the exception of football and basketball in major programs like Alabama (football) or Duke (men's basketball), these programs make almost nothing or may operate at a loss. How much does the women's tennis team bring in? Also, Title IX has it so that every athlete has to be paid the same. So if the QB of Alabama gets money the backup catcher for the softball team has to be paid the same amount. So those are major reasons why college athletes are not paid. Now besides that, the scholarship limits are there to for two majors reasons 1. To separate the schools from large ones to smaller ones and 2. To prevent large schools from hoarding all the talent Basically, it is a competitive balance issue. Just like the salary cap in football. Take football for example, Division I has 85 full ride scholarships so they can bring in 85 athletes and give them a full ride. Thus they bring in the best talent. In division II they have 36 full ride scholarships. Now they can split that up if they want to so that two athletes get a half ride, and typically they do that as they have, at least, 60 roster spots to fill and want them on scholarships, so they do. Thus division II cannot attract better talent because of that. They essentially "pay" athletes less with lower scholarships. But they still have a program. Another restriction is that if you are a scholarship athlete in one sport in order to play for another sport you have to be on scholarship on that sport as well. For example, if you are on a football scholarship in Alabama in order for you to run track you have to be on scholarship to run track as well. That prevents big schools from hoarding all the talent, such as giving out a bunch of fast guys track scholarships, having them play WR in football and use the free up scholarship for other positions. Now with all that said, how do you account for the NCAA in tuition free college? Without scholarship limits big schools like Alabama and Clemson will just attract the best athletes with their amazing facilities. And smaller schools like Central Missouri and Ferris State won't be able to get anything kind of athlete thus they will have to shut down their program down hurting opportunities for many students, not just student athletes. So tell me, how do you account for the NCAA in tuition free college?
1
@jojoboko6990 , the fact that no one has answered the NCAA issue shows that no one has put any thought on this tuition free college situation. Once again far leftists over simplify a complex issue.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , read my comment to jojo on scholarship limits and why they exist in the NCAA. It is about competitive balance to prevent larger schools from hoarding all the talent where the smaller schools suffer. Essentially you will have a system in place where they may be around 20 or 30 college football programs and that's it. The whole point of the scholarship limit is competitive balance in the sport. The fact that you have little idea in how it functions show you put no thought in the tuition free college issue. How can I take you seriously at this point?
1
@jojoboko6990 , they don't get into specifics in how they came up with that number. Plus, they are treating people like pawns simply telling them to change jobs and move without question about their personal life. Many people find a job or career and settle. They don't want to move, they want to work their job and relax at the end of the day. If people wanted to move that much and be that active we will see more people going to college and pushing for graduate degrees and higher up jobs. They don't. But again, you are literally treating people like pawns as if their opinions don't matter and they must do what the government tells them to do. Is that really the right thing to do?
1
@jojoboko6990 , most of the time changes in the market is gradual. The company ending the livelihoods of government? What? A company can't force anything, government has the power of force. And yes, they will have to get a new job as their current one no longer exists. Invest in what? Invest in business and production. With so much government dictating how the economy functions there will be a ton of uncertainty leading to less investment and thus no economic growth.
1
@jojoboko6990 , off of the top of my head they throw out a $30 billion out there. Where do they get that? And do they factor in the changes in housing prices? So you don't care about people? You don't care about the fact you will drastically changing people's lives against their will? You say people have to adapt. I feel people have to adapt to the current healthcare system and not push to ruin people's lives. It is the government telling people what to do. If you don't take the jobs program you will be unemployed. You won't have money because the government killed it. Uh, people setting up their lives to be comfortable is what Shapiro will support. They worked hard to place themselves in a position in life to be comfortable. We can argue what is right. To me drastically changing 1/6 of our economy which will guarantee to lead to a major recession and telling thousands of hard working people to drastically and permanently change their lives is not right to me.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , there is way more to it than that. I picked the NCAA because i know a lot about it and it is the easiest example. I can give more. I have looked at the plans, they are vague and ignore many variables. Essentially they all boil down to "tax people and spend money". It isn't that easy and I used the NCAA as a simple example of how complex it can get. I have a lot of imagination, that is why I am a PhD candidate. You can't limit student enrollment that easily. Also, the point was to prevent larger schools from hoarding all the talent. Without scholarship limits they will be able to hoard all the talent. You want others to be imaginative, why can't you tell that to others who have a hard time paying for college? A part of college is learning how to grow and problem solve. That is what makes college so valuable.
1
@Illtempo-nz1de , saying it "works" in other countries is a very weak argument. as there are many factors you are ignoring. For example, does it "work" in N. Korea?
1
@jrsydvl7218 , go ahead, break it down. I love learning about new topics. I find healthcare very interesting which is why I love to debate it here.
1
@b1bbscraz3y , college is affordable in the US. Small, local colleges are affordable. And when you consider the payout at the end than it is a wise investment.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you will be changing people's lives drastically against their will. Look at how many people vote for politicians on the basis they will bring factory jobs back. Whether or not that happens is a different story, but look at how they vote. Why? Because they don't want a new job. They don't want to train for a new one. At the age of 30 or 40 where they have a home and a family they don't want a new job. They don't want to move. If they did then they would be pursuing more training to find higher paying jobs and move, but they don't. Consider this, in my small town from K-12 I went to school with 52% of the same students. Out of my graduating class I went to school since kindergarten with 52% of them. And that does not include the ones who went to the private K-8 school before going to the only high school in the town. Well over 60% of the people I graduated with went to K-12 in the same town. They did not move. That puts into perspective how people just want to settle. People losing their jobs because of market forces is minute compared to what this medicare for all bill will do. Plus, people in that position are typically low skilled and work unstable jobs to begin with. They are not a part of the middle class with stable job, so it is not a solid comparison. Are people's lives being ruined because of the current healthcare system? We have had this debate and I have stated that it could be because of life choices. Also, is medicare for all the best route? I feel a free market system will work better and will not lead to this massive job loss. I am all for improving the healthcare system and I feel we can do so without killing many jobs. The government is killing the job, I don't agree with that. That is government telling people they have to change their lives drastically. Shapiro is a person who pushes for success, that is his mentality. But I bet you that he will support people settling and living out their life in one place as he understands the common man like most on the right do. A major problem on the left is that they don't understand the common man. This issue is a great example. Many people like their situation in life, including healthcare. But here you have a bill being pushed that will force people to take on new jobs and change their healthcare and the left's argument is that they will say "your life will be better" as if they understand that person's position. They don't. Switching to medicare for all will lead to a major recession. You are talking about government drastically changing 1/6 of our economy. Housing was 5% of our economy and look at the recession that caused. Also, I can argue that our healthcare system is strong and only minor changes are needed. I can argue that medicare for all will be worse. You are pushing the idea that we need to ruin the economy and ruin people's lives now because in the future they will be better off. Again, you have no connection with the common man. That is the problem.
1
@admiral7599 , I don't leave. After a couple of days people typically stop responding on videos and move onto new ones, so I do the same. That is what I have seen. I enjoy these debates, especially on healthcare because people here have little to no idea what they are talking about. But I don't just stop responding, typically other people do after a couple of days.
1
@admiral7599 , how? How has supply side economics have more issues? A major issue of demand side economics is that you can't consume what you don't produce. If you increase demand but don't increase supply than prices go up. Another issue is that essentially demand is always there. There is always a demand for better goods and services. When the iPhone first came out it was very expensive where only well off people can afford it. So it wasn't the fact that people had money that made the iPhone, it was the fact that people want better things. Over time the price dropped where they are free in some cases. There is, arguably, no need to stimulate demand and one can argue that demand side economics has many failures. Also, if people want to learn about topics they should not listen to Kyle. He either has no clue what he is talking about or is being deceptive on purpose. Both cases are not good.
1
@jrsydvl7218 , my bad, I do read these comments quick. As for your insults, it just shows how immature you are and why you can't run with the big boys on these discussions.
1
@jrsydvl7218 , I am not playing victim. I made a simple mistake and you insulted me. You also said the world does not revolve around me. When have I ever indicated that it does? You also said you are informing me. What are you informing me of? If you did not insult me than I would be willing to be civil with you, but you did even though I made a simple mistake. There is a difference between disagreeing and between me making a mistake and you ridiculing me over it.
1
@admiral7599 , recessions in the past mainly happened because of the Federal Reserve. The recent recession of 2007 was because of low interest rates set by the Fed which means more people were spending instead of saving. That is a part of easy monetary policy which is a part of demand side economics. The other part of demand side economics is that is people are receiving money for nothing, why would they work?
1
@jrsydvl7218 , here is what you said "You need to work on your reading comprehension first." You insulted me. My reading comprehension is fine. If not I won't be in grad school. I made one minor mistake and you ripped me on it. As I said, I am more than willing to have a civil discussion, but you have to be civil.
1
@jojoboko6990 1. People don't like to leave their comfort zone. Nothing wrong with that. Why should government force that on people? 2. The fact that change happens is a big argument. It is government controlling the economy and effecting people's lives in a drastic way. When Obamacare was passed people's lives were change in a negative way and thus the republicans won the house. How would you feel if the government told you that your current job is gone, and you will have to move thousands of miles away and retrain for a new job? If you say that you won't mind than I will ask of you, why are you not doing it now? I did. I moved 1500 miles away from my family to pursue a PhD and better myself. But even with that I see why others don't. 3. Ok, what? 4. If there is a crash people still don't move, they suffer until the market stabilizes. But people don't just move. 5. Medical bills being the #1 cause for bankruptcy can, arguably, be because of life choices. Poor people generally have bad health due to poor life choices, and poor people are at high risk of bankruptcy. There is a correlation. As for insurance companies, I agree they have too much power. But instead of getting rid of them I support pushing for a free market approach which allows the consumers to control them more. Right now they can't and Medicare for all, in my opinion, will lead to centralizing the problem where the consumer has essentially no power 6. Exactly. Create competition. Don't centralize the problem. 7. Because you never actually thought about my ideas. The point is that when you have competition that leads to lower prices and higher quality. Where is the incentive to improve when you have one provider? Why should the government improve in a medicare for all system? 8. Federal workers are different. They knew what they were getting themselves into picking up a federal job. And, in the end, they got paid and many people helped us out. If anything this shows that when things become rough the local community and charities will help out society. No need for big federal government. For example, in my state the energy company allowed any federal worker to not pay their energy bill until the government re-opened. This shutdown showed how little we don't need the federal government which supports my point. But consider this. If the government can shut down that easily and not pay people, what makes you think they can't just shut down and not pay for medicare? The government shut down shows how we should not depend on the federal government which is a victory for Trump and the right. 9. Maybe is the left wasn't killing the coal industry those workers will have jobs. 10. Over with what? The left has no desire to connect with the common man. I can give many examples of that if you want. That is why Trump is president. 11. It is. 12. People on the left are not everyday people from what I see. They are cry babies and SJW snowflakes who feel they are better than others. Also, considering how 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare really shows that people do like their healthcare. And again, I can give many examples on how the left has no connection with the common man. 13. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Changing the economy that drastically will lead to investors refusing to invest leading to a major recession, period. 14. How are reforms getting louder? Remember, 80% of voters in Colorado said no. It seems like the left feels the calls are getting louder when in reality the common man is fine. This is an example of how delusional the left has become. 15. It is a certainty that it will ruin the economy. The government changing 1/6 of the economy leads to major economic uncertainty thus less investment thus a crash. I have proven the common man. 80% in Colorado said no. How many Justice Democrats won? 5? if these far left ideas were so popular than they would be winning big time. They aren't. Enjoy 4 more years of Trump.
1
@jojoboko6990 1. I am a moderate 2. I am a PhD candidate 3. He has improve our country by a lot 4. I know healthcare a lot along with climate change, economics and the gun issue 5. To a degree. I feel he is smug at times. I just defend him here because people here mock him as opposed to having an actual argument against him. As a whole I don't really support him, but I do listen to him. 6. I am a moderate. You never picked my brain. I support many ideas on the left. The issue is that the political left is extreme and is causing problems. I can give examples but you have never picked my brain on the issue. 7. What? 8. I don't accept polls because they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts on the issues. Opinions change when more information is given. Kyle points to polls showing that far left ideas are supposedly popular but yet candidates that run on them don't win. There is a correlation there. You call me a hypocrite but be honest, asking people about healthcare when they have little to no idea about it is not a reliable poll. If you think it is than you are a fool and a useful idiot 9. You seem to do poorly on these arguments
1
@jojoboko6990 , really? How do I now know much about climate change? I literally cite the field I study for a living and how we don't much in science and how the science is not settled.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you are not too bright. Take the medicare for all poll. Kyle says around 70% support it. Now say one were to tell those same people the tax rates. Or were to have them read works by Prof. Scott Atlas or Prof. Katherine Baicker, experts in the field who are skeptical of medicare for all? How would the poll look then? I bet it would be much less than 70%. The same can be said about experts who support medicare for all. If you were to give those people works from those experts the polling data will show more support for medicare for all. Opinions change when more information is given. That is why polls are unreliable. The people being polled are not experts and in the methodology you don't know their income, age, career, education level, etc. So you don't know who is really being polled. To blindly follow them is foolish. You call me a hypocrite where I call you a fool.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I actually do know a lot about climate change. You know, I am a scientist. In our discussion on climate change you just ridiculed me. It seems like I know more than you do on climate change. Also, Trump rallied on the wall and won meaning people support it. I told you many times how polls are unreliable and even gave you this https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/ You keep pushing these polls as if they have a lot of value, they don't. Again, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts. There is a reason why at the federal level nothing is ever determined by the simple majority of the people. The people are typically not informed enough to make important decisions. Really, the more the far left points to polls the more I see their side losing as they literally have no other arguments besides saying "there are polls!" while their candidates lose.
1
Uh, after WWII that allowed them to start over so they can implement a program like that. It isn't so easy to change 1/6 of our economy when we are established as we are.
1
The problem is that in healthcare insurance has become healthcare. Insurance should cover unplanned, expensive cases where other healthcare related issues should be paid for out of pocket. But due to the payroll tax healthcare insurance is a form of payment thus making it healthcare. It gives too much power to the healthcare insurance companies. Remove the payroll tax and go to a more free market system and prices will drop. Medicare for all will simply create a monopoly in healthcare transferring the problem to government.
1
Another video of Kyle showing he doesn't understand the issue of healthcare. Where in hell does he get his numbers? $500? $300? He is literally making shit up.
1
He is cherry picking one rich person. Yes, Paris Hilton was given her money and became famous for essentially doing nothing. But most rich people actually earned their money. It is similar to when someone looks at a person who lives off of welfare and refuses to work and saying that is how all welfare people are.
1
@rneedham667 , so following the law makes him a thief?
1
Uh, this issue requires a much more advanced discussion than Kyle and his fans can handle. That is why he used the over simplified example he does.
1