Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Schools Candidates Smearing u0026 Talking Over Him" video.

Kyle is a child. How you are going to pay for it is important. Bernie never answers the question, he just deflects.
2
When will he answer it?
2
Polling well does not mean it will work
1
@FrodohTBaggins , Bernie makes up numbers.
1
@chaunceystewart9960 exactly. Can't wait to see how he acts when Bernie loses
1
Deflecting to the Iraq war is asinine. One, that was over many years. Next, it still does not change the fact that Bernie's plans will be very expensive and in some way has to be funded.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , the author of that admitted that access and quality will drop. Also, the study gave a range of how much it would cost. Far leftists look only at the low number. It also just showed public spending, not private.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , that study gave vague numbers with no justification. They also treat people like pawns. For example, they have a portion there about helping people retrain and transfer jobs as if people are going to be willing to change jobs. Also, changing jobs require moving which will change the prices in housing and many people don't want to move. Did you actually read these studies? Also, that study did not factor in quality and access.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , are you going to actually read the material you reference?
1
Atheos B. Sapien , it is bringing up concerns of a study. While you blindly follow it I have actually read it and brought up concerns. Again, do you read anything you cite?
1
@PolymorphBanana , so the federal government, that is over $20 trillion in debt, is going to save money? Read the UMass study. They throw numbers out there with no methods in how they obtained them. The study is far from detailed. It assumes that the market will remain stagnant despite the tax increases, spending changes and job movement.
1
@PolymorphBanana , also, the reason why no one puts me down is because people like you cite a study but have not even read it. If you did then you will be able to address my concerns. Again on retraining people who lose their jobs, what makes you think they will want to do that? Many people like the place the work as in the people they work around. You are now going to force them out of that situation and into another one. You don't see an issue there? Or if they have to move, the UMass study does not account for the change in home prices. If a bunch of workers have to move their home value drops where they have to sell it for less. And with the community will lose property taxes at that point and so on. Again, the UMass study assumes a stagnant economy even though healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. A lot is tied into healthcare. It will have a major impact leading to a major recession. Why? Because investors will sit tight to see how the market will swing. That will harm millions of working Americans.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , how about you tell me how the federal government overtaking 1/6 of the economy, thus creating high economic uncertainty, will not lead to a major recession.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , it isn't dismissing a study. It is asking further questions. You are just blinding following a study with no question. I bet if the same authors of that study told you that you can see hell if you stick your head in fire you would do it.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , again, no mention of access and quality.
1
@PolymorphBanana you ask why people will lose their jobs? The UMass study says it. Did you even read the study?
1
Atheos B. Sapien , me taking meds is irrelevant. Way to continue to add to the stigma of people with mental illnesses. Next time I see you I can easily dismiss you as someone who thinks that someone who suffers through a mental illness is inferior.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , elitists like you is why Trump became elected. You feel that since I take meds that I am inferior. That is your shallow thought process. No wonder you blindly follow a "study" without actually reading it and thinking critically. You can't even think for yourself.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , quality is great for most. That is why healthcare reform has always been a major challenge. When people like Bernie and his fans point to the shortcomings of healthcare they are pointing to a very minute crowd of the total nation. When he points to bankruptcies it is around 100,000 a year, that is around 0.03% of the nation. The deaths are, at most, 68,000 year, around 0.02% of the nation. With those numbers there are doubts if they are even that high as many variables are involved. Going to a M4A system will also lead to deaths due to lack of access. How many is hard to determine? How many deaths that occur due to lack of access now is hard to determine? Numbers have ranged from zero to 68000 a year. That is what makes this issue so challenging. Every system comes at a cost. Problem is that the far left, like you, refuse to discuss the actual economics of it.
1
@PolymorphBanana , I agree our healthcare system has problems, but we improve the system we have. We don't replace it. At this point you are taking the authoritarian approach of "screw them, they have to obey". Also, I already proved to you that you did not read the study. You did not know about the issues of jobs being loss.
1
@pointlesstwat8927 , uh, that is an honest way in phrasing it. Our society won't support M4A as it will raise taxes, force people on it and limit access to care.
1
@kennethmcneil3478 , so why do you trust polls that claim M4A is popular? I agree that polls are not reliable for many reasons. So why don't you criticize Bernie and Kyle when they cite polls?
1
@TheInfallibleFallacy , other nations have issues as well. The issue with healthcare is that very few take the time to fully understand. They hardly scratch the surface. There are many factors at play such as the economics, culture, expectations, etc. If we go with M4A our spending will drop down to around 10% of GDP which is similar to other nations. However, like other nations we will have to cap how much care people receive. One reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US is because we offer the most advanced care/testing and as a result we have the highest survival rates of advanced illnesses. With that said there are counter arguments to that. One, how much of that advanced testing is necessary? One can say that, statistically it isn't. Someone else can say better safe than sorry. Next, with advanced care as written in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when they will only live another 4 or 10 months. The issue becomes do we offer care who are very sick knowing they will die a few months later? Or do we save money like other nations do and deny advanced care unless they are willing to pay? There is more to it but the reality is that in the healthcare debate no one is willing to have the difficult questions, especially the far left in pushing for M4A. People feel that M4A will lower costs but also provide the same level of care it does now. That makes zero sense economically.
1
@TheInfallibleFallacy , so when you say other nations are disgusted by our system, I feel the same way about their system who simply let the very sick die.
1
, saying wait times will be based on "need" is flawed. In other nations "elective" care included certain times of heart and neurosurgery. And studies have shown that longer wait times have led to worse outcomes both physically and financially.
1
@ozzie3963 , the GND is a push for communism.
1
@P4ndieEy3ss , the coronavirus is an exception. When you have a situation like that then government acts. We are not talking about the common cold but something much more severe that came all at once.
1
@pointlesstwat8927 , it is an honest way to ask. To pay for M4A you have to raise taxes on everyone. And with a 40% less payment access will be limited. So good luck convincing millions of Americans that their taxes will go up, the level of care they receive will go down, and they will be forced on a system. Saying it will ration care based on "need" is a flawed argument. What is a "need" is not always objective, and most of the time it isn't objective. Other nations consider certain forms of heart and neurosurgery as "elective" where people end up dying. People have become worse off waiting for "elective" care. You bring up poor people dying, what about other people dying or becoming worse off physically and financially because you forced them to wait?
1
@kennethmcneil3478 , what is a "credible poll" to you? I feel that a "credible poll" to you is one that gives you the results that you desire.
1
@TheYakisobaNoodle , M4A will not cover everything.
1
@TheYakisobaNoodle , medicare pays 40% less. Healthcare providers will limit access to care at that point. Other nations have a private option for that reason. Mainly advanced care will be limited in access.
1
@ingalook , how many people will M4A let die?
1
@TheYakisobaNoodle , so I have to pay double?
1
@alecjasonn , ever thought most don't need to go to the doctor? And admin costs will not go up. Government always has high admin costs usually at the excuse of creating jobs. College for all won't bring more doctors. Med schools have less than a 50% acceptance rate. More people don't become doctors because they simply can't do it. "Well, we will need their help in the new, larger, Medicare Administration." But you said Medicare will have less admin? And your last sentence proved my point. Government has a lot of administration on the excuse of just creating jobs. So now you have a less efficient system.
1
It is about resources. Resources are limited, that is basic economics. At some point either the government will have to pay a shit ton or let people die.
1