Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Attacked By RNC For Dumbest Reason Ever" video.

  1. Do you even have a counter argument to him or do you just mock him?
    3
  2. Exactly. These polls are unreliable as they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts
    1
  3. Kyle, once again, shows his ignorance on economics. Bezos does not have that much money.
    1
  4.  @melissadavis2102  , wealth does not equal income. Most of his wealth is derived from his assets which is his shares of stock from his company. Bezos earns $80,000 a year. Learn the difference between wealth and income if you want to have a serious discussion on economics.
    1
  5.  @melissadavis2102  , that is him saying he has that much income
    1
  6.  @JWildberry  , how many people understand Medicare to begin with? That is the point. Not many. Saying you support Medicare for all is a vague question. It does not include the tax rates, or what quality of healthcare will exist (for example, it took Medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits), and so on. Healthcare is very complex and just asking people if they support medicare or all is not a solid poll. If you give those same people a year's worth of education on healthcare and the economics of it they poll will come out complete different.
    1
  7.  @JWildberry  , in short, what is the policy? That is not being asked.
    1
  8. Bernie's point is foolish. Public education, fire departments, police, etc. are locally ran and funded. Also, the amount of those programs provided is varies. How much healthcare should be provided by the government? Bernie never says.
    1
  9.  @donHooligan  , more complex than that.
    1
  10.  @linusmlgtips2123  , exactly. This poll just adds more information compared to the polls Kyle points to. Now imagine what the results will be if they included the tax rates.
    1
  11. Oh, so now Kyle questions polls? So when a poll goes against Kyle's ideas it is flawed?
    1
  12.  BetOnMyStork 2020  , doesn't matter. Here is a poll that disagrees with Kyle. Either he supports polls or he questions them. You can't have it your way.
    1
  13.  BetOnMyStork 2020  the question you ask is vague. I support progressive policies that help all, i feel medicare for all is not that. The problem with polls is that they a vague questions on complex issues being asked to nonexperts. Define "progressive policies".
    1
  14. Those programs are ran locally where many places don't even have some of those programs.
    1
  15.  @kedaariyer4887  if you make healthcare a right you have to enslave doctors. Just like people are forced to do jury duty or people have to sign up for the draft.
    1
  16.  C W  you ridiculed janitors and people with mental illnesses, that is a fact.
    1
  17.  C W  how is Trump cutting funding for the special olympics? Congress controls the purse. You love moving the goal posts.
    1
  18.  @GordieKat  , their laws a different there. The point is if you make healthcare a right than, like jury duty, the government will force people to work in that industry.
    1
  19.  @bomblazetheknight3086  , if you make healthcare a right than the analogy fits.
    1
  20.  @melissadavis2102  , if you make healthcare a right than you have to force others to work in the field like we do with jury duty.
    1
  21.  @melissadavis2102  , also, if doctors refuse to work for less and we have less doctors, what do you do at that point?
    1
  22.  @GordieKat  , if you make it a right you will have to just like how the government can create the draft for the military if needed.
    1
  23.  @GordieKat  , not really a solid argument.
    1
  24.  @RipCityBassWorks  , I never said they work for free. The laws in those nations are different. In the US if you make healthcare a right you have to force people to work in the industry just like we do with jury duty or with selective service. In those two cases people are still paid, but if they refuse to work they go to jail. That is the point.
    1
  25. @Ricky Salazarr , if you make healthcare a right you will have to just like we do with Jury duty and selective service.
    1
  26. @Ricky Salazarr , Shapiro has great counter arguments and from what I have seen people have nothing against him to where they just mock him. I am not saying Shapiro is right all the time, I disagree with him on things and can do so in an intelligent, and detailed way. But what I see from the far left is simply mocking him. Shapiro is right, if you make healthcare a right you have to force people to work in the industry just like we force people to do jury duty because a trial by jury is a right. Now if you make healthcare a service paid for by the government that is a different discussion. That is the point Shapiro is making. How about instead of mocking him you listen to what he says and think about what he says. This lack of intellectual thought and discussion is why Trump became president. The far left, instead of having an intelligent discussion, simply wants to silence their opponents with ridicule.
    1
  27.  @melissadavis2102  , Medicare pays out at 40% less than private insurance. They will be cutting salaries. Also, the demand will increase for doctors to where their work load will increase. So working more, even for the same salary, is still a paycut. I read the bill, it ignores many factors in healthcare. Healthcare is very complex with a lot of moving parts. You can't expect Medicare for all to save money when many factors point to it costing more money.
    1
  28. @Ricky Salazarr , but you didn't. Your argument was "you are wrong and it is common knowledge". You are, in a round about way, calling me dumb. Here is the fact, if you list healthcare as a "right" than the government has the authority to force people to work in the field, just like the government has the authority to force people to do jury duty. Selective service is necessary by law https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register I pointed out how UHI will make employment in the medical industry mandatory if you classify it as a right.
    1
  29. @Ricky Salazarr , saying "you're wrong" is not a counter argument. You have to explain how I am wrong. I gave you examples where the government can clearly force people to work.
    1
  30. @Ricky Salazarr , I have strong evidence of government forcing people to work with selective service and jury duty. Every nation does something different as their laws are different. I am looking at US laws. Also, saying it never happened is not an argument. You know, there is no cure for many cancers in the world. I guess we should stop trying to find one with your standard.
    1
  31. @Ricky Salazarr , Bernie has said many times that he wants healthcare to be a right. If he makes it a right than the courts will have to treat it the same as jury duty. That is what will be argued in court and there are solid cases there. You and Bernie can say one thing, but it is up to how the courts interpret the law. You have to sign up for selective service and you keep avoiding the issue of jury duty. Why?
    1
  32.  @bomblazetheknight3086  "Going to jury duty is stated to be an obligation for being a US citizen in the Bill of rights itself." Yes, because people have a right to a trial by jury. If you make healthcare a right than you have to force people to work in the medical field. That is the point. "people become doctors to earn wages in order to pay for things they want, that’s why they do what they do it in the first place, that’s simple economics. These people are PAID to do their jobs! " If they are underpaid or over worked they will quit their job, especially someone that skilled.
    1
  33. @Ricky Salazarr , the UN does not mean anything as it isn't US law. Also, Bernie has said many times that healthcare is a right. So are you now calling him a liar? Yes, every person has a "right to trial" in front of a jury of their peers. If you make healthcare a right you have to force people to work in the healthcare industry just like we force people to serve on a jury. You have a right to bear arms, that does not mean the government will provide you one. Major difference. If you want to go off of that standard than you already have a right to pursue healthcare, you just have to pay for it.
    1
  34. @Ricky Salazarr , his response was in making healthcare a right. In the US if you make a healthcare a right than the government has to force people to work in that field like we do with jury duty. That is the evidence. The right to bear arms does not mean the government provides you a service as no service is requires to protect that right from the government. But jury duty does require a service just like healthcare is a service.
    1
  35.  @bomblazetheknight3086  , even if you receive funds if there is no one to provide healthcare than what? That is the point. In jury duty government forces people to serve on a jury. You actually don't have a right to the services of the police, read the court case of Warren v DC. As for legal representation, define that. Does it mean a lawyer? Or a judge? Or a politician? It just so happens that it becomes a lawyer, but it does not say "lawyer", it says "Assistance of Counsel for his defence". That is broad. Doctors are already highly pay, with that medical schools have less than a 50% acceptance rate. Being a doctor is hard. That is why, despite, the high pay, not many pursue it.
    1
  36. @Ricky Salazarr , actually, police and firemen are not nationalized. They are locally ran and funded where we are so short firemen 70% of them are volunteer and some areas have private fire department. Not to be rude but if you want to discuss this issue you really need to know what you are talking about.
    1
  37. @Ricky Salazarr , uh, no. It is not a national service. Also, you don't have a right to those services, that is the difference. As I said, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
    1
  38. @Ricky Salazarr , how about you quote me that.
    1
  39. @Ricky Salazarr , uh no they aren't. The only role the federal government has is to ensure that the 14th amendment is not violated. States and local governments don't have to have law enforcement, education or fire fighters. Case in point, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, look up Warren v DC on how police should act.
    1
  40. @Ricky Salazarr , again, quote that part of the constitution. Also, no, it does not become a right. Again, states don't have to establish education. If they do then they have to treat everyone equally via the 14th amendment. You need to read the Constitution again and study up on it more. You also did not address the Warren V DC case.
    1
  41.  @Raizhen010  , not really a counter argument on your part. I am all for having an intelligent, and productive conversation. But when you just mock me it goes nowhere. It comes down to how you establish universal healthcare. If you establish it as a right than yes, you have to force others to serve. If you establish it as a program the government funds than you don't have to. Just like education is established as a program the government funds where we lack teachers in many areas but don't force people to teach. We just suffer with lack of teacher. You have to understand law if you want to form an argument.
    1
  42. @Ricky Salazarr , "promote" does not mean provide. One can "promote" something by being hands off. For example, I can "promote" education on a topic by recommending a book to read. That does not mean I will "provide" that book nor explain it to you. You seem to struggle with the Constitution.
    1
  43.  @conniedee  , under Medicare for all you will be taking a 40% pay cut while being asked to take on more customers due to higher demand. No different than how many leftists areas run their education system. For example, in the LA unified school district the state of CA is a sanctuary state. As such classrooms are filled with illegal children and due to lack of teachers those teachers have to take on class room sizes of 40+. Now they did strike to get a better deal, but still, they are being over worked.
    1
  44. @Ricky Salazarr , I read the constitution. You say "promote", that does not mean "provide". Again, you can promote something without providing it. I gave you an example of recommending a book. I am promoting higher knowledge to you by recommending a book. I don't have to provide it. Major difference. Just like many economic experts can argue that to "promote" a strong economy the government needs to reduce taxes and spending. Also, nation wide 70% of fire fighters are volunteer https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/summary Not to be rude, but do you know how to cite things? Give me a direct quote from the Constitution.
    1
  45. @Ricky Salazarr , it isn't cherry picking. You don't have a right to police services which is the basis of Warren v DC. Just like you don't have a right to services of fire fighters which is why 70% of them, nation wide, are volunteer.
    1
  46.  @bomblazetheknight3086  , right now there are a abundance of doctors and medical workers. Just like there was an abundance of mental health facilities until the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was passed when the federal government had a larger role in mental health care. That led to less hospitals. Know your history.
    1
  47.  @bomblazetheknight3086  , it did. The reason why is because many states decided to pass the buck onto the federal government where the federal government did not have the man power nor the resources to create more hospitals. Also, one can easily argue that government run programs leads to shortages. You make it sound like the government has a magic wand and can create things out of thin air.
    1
  48.  @bomblazetheknight3086  , the free market has always been the best route for developing more resources. The federal government has a long history of hindering the production of resources. Under M4A doctors will have to take a 40% paycut, thus there will be less doctors. Due to bureaucracy it took medicare around 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/ http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf That is an example of how inefficient government can be.
    1
  49.  @bomblazetheknight3086  , also, I do not run away from the topic. The original topic was about making healthcare a right and enslaving doctors. 1. The federal government does have the ability to force people to work as shown in selective service and jury duty 2. If you make healthcare a right than the government has to force people to work in the field like they force people to do jury duty. Your only argument is "no they won't".
    1
  50. @Ricky Salazarr , again, "promote" does not mean "provide". I have explained that many times. Also, the Preamble has no legal authority https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble You can also read this as this person lays it out well "domestic tranquility". https://www.quora.com/What-does-insure-domestic-tranquility-mean In short, to "ensure domestic tranquility " means to keep domestic peace from foreign invaders and terrorist. It does not grant the US government authority on domestic issue within state lines. You can also read this https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ "The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
    1
  51.  @trans8010  , so the government shut them down and did not open any new ones up? I see that as a problem. Volunteer fire fighters is an example of the community working to solve a problem. This is why I support smaller, more local government as it becomes a community effort as opposed to a political effort.
    1
  52. @Ricky Salazarr , the Constitution places limitations on government, that is the philosophy of it. It outlines the duties of the federal government and gives the rest of the powers to the states. And our rights listed in the Constitution protects us from government, it does not give government more power. You hate my philosophy because it prevents you from forming an oppressive dictatorship. I agree we have rights, but rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. It limits governments, it does not expand it. There is a desire to have government, but you have to limit it and keep it under control.
    1
  53. @Ricky Salazarr, the laws the federal government create deal with commerce between states and foreign affairs. The federal government cannot violate the commerce clause. You seem to hate the Constitution, but I bet you will support it if it prevents people you dislike from growing in power (like Trump). You have a double standard there.
    1
  54. @Ricky Salazarr , uh, there is. It is called the "commerce clause". The federal government is there to deal with foreign affairs and handle commerce between states. You hate my philosophy because you want to expand the federal government but hate that pesky Constitution. Also, the Constitution does not allow the US to become a dictatorship. Where do you get your information? Have you ever read the Constitution?
    1
  55. @Ricky Salazarr , the commerce clause is commerce between states. For example, that the water bottle industry, is a company creates water bottles and sells them in just one state, they don't have to follow FDA regulations. This was mentioned in the movie "Tapped". The federal government is in control of interstate commerce, not instate commerce. "Nothing in the Constitution says the government can't provide social services," Exactly. It outlines the duties of the federal government. It outlines what the federal government can do.
    1
  56. @Ricky Salazarr , I read the commerce clause and know it. It is commerce between states, not commerce between people. The Constitution clearly states the difference between people and states. That movie is not wrong as that statement came from an FDA official. If you stay within state lines you don't have to follow FDA regulations. That is why many local restaurants don't display nutrition facts as they don't have to follow FDA regulations. You don't understand law very well.
    1