Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Pressed On 'Medicare For All' By CNN Host" video.

  1. +Mark Linton Considering how Bernie gave no answer I can see why they ignored them.
    2
  2. +Ingo Knito Bernie has radical ideas with no specifics. People are going to demand numbers from him. He continues not to provide any. He just says "tax the rich" and that is it. He is an easy target and is more or less a joke at this point.
    2
  3. +Trisoz Because people don't want to see him flap his arms around like a seal and spew the same thing for 5 minutes.
    2
  4. +dipojones To give counter arguments to what he says. Debating people on here actually taught me a lot on the issues.
    2
  5. +King Blargh One, I am poor. Two, shit happens.
    2
  6. +SCP-1048 Builder Bear Those rankings are more or less useless. Two professors wrote a book showing that. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  7. +COD GAMING PORTUGAL And they are still inferior compared to the US system
    1
  8. +Teddy Galvez What is the "fair share"? This is why Bernie is attacked so much, he has radical ideas with rhetoric for solutions.
    1
  9. +Westin Wilkins Having the federal government of a country with over 300 million people run healthcare is radical, especially since it constitutionally can't.
    1
  10. +Ideally Jekyl 300 million people means more bureaucracy and more corruption.
    1
  11. +Ideally Jekyl Then why make it more corrupt?
    1
  12. +Christopher Anderson 1. Raising corporate taxes means they will leave when they already are. Chasing them away more does not increase tax revenue 2. Taxes on speculation hurts the middle class http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/04/why-taxing-wall-street-wont-work-commentary.html 3. Raise it to what? He did not say. Also raising cap shows the flaws of socialist policies. It works until you run out of other people's money. We are out now, so what do we do? Raise taxes. And when we run out again, what do we do? Raise taxes. You can't tax everyone over 100%, and people don't like working for free. He is not specific. He also ignores the problems that arises from his plan. For example, with "free college". He numbers do not include expanded enrollment, and his numbers only will pay for 2/3 of the cost, the states will pay the rest. He does not say how, he just said they would. But how is he going to counter the lack of professors, classrooms, dorms and so on? He never says that. "Also, I have this issue anytime someone gets the idea that the Constitution restricts us from progress somehow." It doesn't. We can make all these changes at the state and local level. The constitution was to place limitations on the governments which is what you want. You may feel that the federal government expanding welfare to people or paying for things is good, but now you have open the door way for it to become corrupt. So in the future they may pass a bill expanding social security, but in that same bill there may be law that gives huge tax breaks to corporations which is, I assume you don't want. But if you protest that part of the law then bye bye social security. The idea of the constitution was to have balance. You can have government but you need the ability to control it. You can control it easier at the state and local level. If you want to give the federal government power to give you welfare then I want to stop hearing you wine when they get donations from millionaires. Remember, that same politician that is getting that donation from the rich is paying for your retirement......you better keep him happy.
    1
  13. +Jacob Morris Look at his videos, this one could have been 7 minutes. I stopped listening after 9 when he said the same thing 3 times.
    1
  14. +dipojones Who said I subscribed to begin with?
    1
  15. +Cardboard Box Not really. A couple of professors wrote a book called The Business of Health that showed the massive differences.
    1
  16. +Cardboard Box http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There it is if you want to read it.
    1
  17. +King Blargh I deserve sex with two chicks at the same time. Better start rounding up some girls.
    1
  18. +Yoko Kanno And if the product is not there then they have to wait. We have a waiting line for organs. How do you solve that? Making something a right does not make it available.
    1
  19. +King Blargh What point?
    1
  20. +Rob McCune Handle what? That your boy Bernie Sanders does not support free speech according to you.
    1
  21. +King Blargh If you add all these people on healthcare, where we lack resources as is, people will die waiting for care.
    1
  22. +ryan8878 No, the rich will pay for private. Now the middle class has to wait for care as well where before they could get it.
    1
  23. +King Blargh Cost is an issue. There are ways we can fix that.
    1
  24. +Yoko Kanno And I live in the US and I never once had to wait for care or pay a large amount of money. So you are just making shit up......see how easy that was to turn around. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf That is debatable.
    1
  25. +Shpresim Muja Bernie is more or less a joke at this point.
    1
  26. +xLegendaryPete Who?
    1
  27. +xLegendaryPete I am not a Trump supporter. And Bernie is a joke. His policy in a nutshell: Free stuff and raise taxes.
    1
  28. +MrJc9600 The US has the best university system in the world. And the US healthcare is arguably the best in the world. The federal government is corrupt because it has power that can be bought. Adding more power to the federal government will compound our problems. The US , percentage wise, has the largest number of international students.
    1
  29. +xLegendaryPete http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Arguably they do.
    1
  30. +Fredrik Herre I am not blind. Bernie is a nut.
    1
  31. +Fredrik Herre He has been in congress for over 2 decades and still doesn't know what the tax rate should be pay for all of his policies.
    1
  32. +xLegendaryPete He is a career politician. He speaks rhetoric and goes off of emotions to push his policies. This presidential run is a retirement plan for him. If he really cared about the people he would have ran a long time ago.
    1
  33. +Ylze Tyr I thought I told you to read a high school economics book.
    1
  34. +Ylze Tyr Do I need to give you a list of things that you got wrong again and how it far outnumbers the one you are trying to do. You can only give one point that is incorrect. The offshore shelter one shows your confusion on the issue. Things you did not know 1. Skilled Biased Technological Change 2. Supply and demand curve 3. Price ceilings and price floor (I am still trying to get you to read that book) 4. Subjective value theory (funny part was that you said I did not know the definition of subjective) 5. Who Christina Romer was (but cited a government site that gave no citations) 6. Who Paul Krugman was 7. How to read statistics 8. How overall employment is effected by several variables beyond small price control of labor I can go on, but, you know 8 is enough. Also, if I made something up, please tell me what did Bernie say was going to be the tax rate on the 1%?
    1
  35. +Ylze Tyr Answer the question. What will be the rate that Bernie raises taxes to?
    1
  36. +Fredrik Herre Nice response. Would not have expected anything better from a Bernie Sanders fan.
    1
  37. +Ylze Tyr I answered your question. One reason why he is a nut is because he is promising all of this stuff but does not know what the tax rate will be on the 1% to pay for it. You then told me that I was wrong. How? What is the tax rate on the 1% going to be under Bernie? What number did he say?
    1
  38. +Ylze Tyr "he has said he is going to release his full tax plan before Iowa." And as I said, he has been in congress for over 2 decades, there should have been an approximate number in there. He is planning all of these things but when asked how he will pay for them he simply said "raise taxes on the rich". He has to get into more detail than that. I don't attack Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton or others in that way because they are not the ones out there promising all of these things like healthcare, college, jobs, infrastructure and so on. Bernie said he will offer those things and when asked how he plans to pay for it he simply says that he is working on it. How does he even know he can pay for it at that point? The simple answer is that he is a nut. He wants to offer all of these things but does not even have a clue of how, and he has been in congress for over 2 decades. So no, I did not dodge anything. And from your anger I have a feeling that someone is upset for getting burned.
    1
  39. +Ylze Tyr Of course the Broncos don't want to release their game plan, they don't want the Steelers to know. But people need to know Bernie's plan. The fact that he has not released one is showing that he does not have a plan. We need to know how he plans to pay for these things. If not then why vote for him? Great way to come up with a poor analogy.
    1
  40. +Ylze Tyr What is his plan? Please explain it in detail. He hasn't released one or even given approximate numbers. And he has been in congress for over 2 decades. What he did was promise things without coming up with a plan to offer them first. Unless you know, and if you do then please tell. But until then he hasn't. Thus he is a nut.
    1
  41. +Ylze Tyr But you just earlier he has a plan? How do you know if he hasn't released it yet?
    1
  42. +Ylze Tyr You said he has a plan. How do you know until he releases one? This whole thing started when I said Bernie did not state what his tax rate will be. You said I was wrong. Now you say he has a plan but hasn't released one yet? Why are you switching stories? You are making assumption. Here is my assumption. Bernie is assuming you are dumb, and he is pretty much right. He is promising all of these things with no plan. Now he says he has one but has not released it. Damn you are fooled easily. I bet you will stick your head in fire if Bernie told you that you could see hell by doing so.
    1
  43. +Ylze Tyr Ok, then Trump, Clinton, Rubio and Cruz all have plans as well. But you said earlier they didn't?
    1
  44. +Fredrik Herre They are not the ones that ones that are promising the pie in the sky. Bernie is saying he is going to offer all of these things but hasn't even come up with a plan for how to offer them. And when asked he simply says he is working on them? He has been in congress for over 2 decades, he should have an idea. Even Bill Maher questioned him when he asked that to pay for all of that all he has to do is raise taxes on the 1%. That is why Bernie is a nut. On the flat income tax, you do know that there never use to be an income tax. It was a tax on the state. It was unconstitutional to tax individuals at the federal level before 1913. Why do you think we need to federal government to run most of the programs it does? That right there is a problem as well. Yeah, he said it won't be as high as 90%. 85% is not that high, but it is higher than what we have now and that is what he said it will be.
    1
  45. +Ylze Tyr Nope, I am just going off of what you are saying and wondering why you keep flip flopping.
    1
  46. +Fredrik Herre I want numbers from Bernie because he is promising all of these things but has not given any specifics on how he will offer them. Sure, others have been broad in what they plan to do, but they are not offering a bunch of things to people. None of their ideas are radical or unrealistic. Bernie's are unless he can go through the numbers and convince me otherwise. "Have you checked up on the rest of the world? There are already countries that has all his ideas AND MORE implemented. Why wouldn't it be doable in the US?" Simply saying "look at the rest of the world" is a hand wavy argument. They are different countries, several with populations less than most of our states. They all do different things and in reality have their own set of problems. But simply saying "well other countries do it why not us" is a very weak argument. It is totally removing the complexity of the situation. For example, it is arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Or with "free college". In other countries they track their students so only who the government deems worthy can go. In the US we have opportunity. Even at all of that I personally don't like to compare the US to other countries. The variables are too great. Denmark is considered successful. They have mandatory military service. Do you want that? Or do you want to be like Norway and drill for more oil to pay for those things? That goes against Bernie's idea of going off of fossil fuels. But he wants to be more like those countries. So why not drill for more oil like Norway does? Statistically Norway does better than us in so many ways and that is why. $250,000 is not a lot of money if you live in NYC, or LA, or Dallas or other major cities. That is why simply saying raise taxes on that much does not fly because it does not take into consideration the cost of living differences along with other things. Also, at what percent? He should have an estimate. He does not. That is why the 90% is being said. He has not even said what it will roughly be and he has been in congress for over 2 decades. Wall street speculation tax is taxing scholarships for college, or people's retirement, or small businesses. Plus, that will only pay for 2/3 of college according to Bernie. What about the other 1/3? And that is ignoring the increased influx of students who will now go to college since it is being paid for. Bernie has not mentioned a plan for that unless he wants to limit who goes to college which goes against the American Dream. Military spending is not that high. Plus most spending is to solve conflict without violence. You also have spending in research and college tuition from the military. What do you want to cut? I don't want an exact number, I want an estimate. A ballpark range. He has been in congress for over 2 decades, he should have an idea. Bill O'Reilly asked him what the tax rate will be on him. Bernie said he will have to work on it. The man has been in congress for over 2 decades. Bill wanted an estimate. Bernie could not even give that. He wants to offer healthcare, college, jobs, infrastructure and so on to people but does not even have a general idea of how to offer it. That is what is crazy. "Are you up in that 1% bracket? " No, but creating policies like that compounds our problems. And it goes against the whole come together idea that Bernie wants. Coming together and attacking a group of people does not produce success. "Doesn't matter where taxation was going or what was in 1913. Today matters, and you can't run the US on a 10% flat income tax." Actually they can. We can cut those programs and pass them to the states like this country was set up to run. A lot of what the federal government runs is unconstitutional to begin with. Cut those programs and allow the states to run them will save a lot. The fact that you think we need the federal government to run those programs is a problem in itself.
    1
  47. +Fredrik Herre One, I am not republican. I don't agree with a lot of what they say. But Bernie does a lot of fear mongering. As in we need the government to provide us with X, Y and Z or we die. You can't compare us to Europe who also have problems as well. You are saying that countries in Europe are better than the US when no justification exists. His general idea is too general when he is basically promising the moon. You are comparing us to Europe, a continent with many countries. We are diverse in the US because we have several states that are larger than countries. Bernie is looking at other countries for way of life while ignoring several variables involved. He is picking and choosing what he wants. Norway can pay for their way so life due to oil. Denmark can get away with their way of life due to a different society. Bernie is ignoring the complexity of the issue. $250,000 is not a lot of money in Hawaii, NYC, LA or other expensive places, especially if you have a few kids. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/04/why-taxing-wall-street-wont-work-commentary.html You really need to learn more about the economy. If you look at percent of GDP the US is 4th in military spending. We got 40 hour work week, weekends off and so on because of competition between businesses. The most successful people work more than 40 hours a week and on weekends. Learn some history and learn the complexity of the issues Bernie is trying to tackle. I can't wait until his tax plan comes out, seeing economist tear it a part will be funny.
    1
  48. +Ylze Tyr So instead of attacking the argument you attack the grammar. How about you tell me what Skilled Biased Technological Change is, or what a supply and demand curve is, or price ceilings and price floors and how they are inefficient. Pure fact is that his plan has been shown to cost a lot of money, and there is no way he can pay for it. But I am interested to see. I have a feeling that he will pull out of the race though when he realizes he can't produce a plan and say that he ran just to pull the democrats more left. And his dumb supporters will still support him. Now please, go read and economics book. I know reading is hard for you but please. And while you are at it, go learn some 2nd grade math.
    1
  49. +Ylze Tyr You should make better use of the computer time the crazy home you live in lets you have.
    1
  50. +Ylze Tyr Not a dodge, just giving you helpful advice. It is nice of the crazy home to give you computer time. I suggest you use it wisely.
    1
  51. +Ylze Tyr I have given my ideas and have to you as well. You refused to listen. I come here for intellectual debates, not to entertain you.
    1
  52. +Fredrik Herre Other campaign do not promise the moon though. Bernie does so I expect him to at least have some idea on how he will pay for it. He doesn't which makes him an easy target. Other politicians are broad in what they want so for now they get a pass. After the primaries I will be more aggressive in expecting more. You really can't compare the US to Europe. If you do then you have to look at their problems as well such as higher cost of living and lower productivity. Just looking at the good and ignoring the bad does not bring progress. But in the end you are comparing two different societies. When I say he is promising the moon I am referring to him promising a lot. We are $18 trillion in debt with welfare recipients growing. Social security is losing money and he says we have to raise taxes to pay for it. Well, in 50 years what should we do then? Raise taxes? That is why socialism does not work in the long run, eventually you run out of money. Taxes can only go so high. Bernie just wants to keep raising them. His simply can't afford his promises. Those countries in Europe all have their own healthcare model. So which one do you pick to copy? Also, what I am getting at is that states should be taking care of the healthcare issue. A country like Denmark only has to worry about 5 million people, not 300 million. A huge difference. This is exactly why the founding fathers wanted state rights. Nothing is in a vacuum. You just can't pick and choose what you like. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf That book also explains how complex these issues are and how so many variables are connected, thus you just can't pick and choose. $250,000 is not a lot of money. Plus, Bernie wants to attack the millionaires, but now the $250,000? How far down is he going to go? Using a logical fallacy does not support an argument. What about the article do you not like? Unless you state what then you clearly don't know much about the economy. Unions were not the result of what you think. A developing country that allowed companies to come about to offer less hours and higher pay do that. Look at child labor. We can remove child labor laws right now and we will be fine because more children are attending college. More children are entering the workforce later (as in past the age of 18) and living with their parents longer. We have developed into a society where children don't have to work as much if at all. This idea that unions did it is false, it was the economy growing. Bernie's idea that he will save $5 trillion is pure speculation based off of no number.
    1
  53. +Fredrik Herre My number 1 problem with Bernie Sanders is this. This country was designed to have a very limited federal government and more state rights. The more local government is the more power people have over it to where they can see if the government is remaining the servants as opposed to the masters. We have more control of government at the state and local level and a louder voice. Bernie wants to expand the size of the federal government which we have little control of. And while he may do so for the people, what is going to stop future federal politicians from abusing that power? What is going to prevent the next president from abusing that power? That is my number one problem with Bernie. He is creating a system that can easily be abused at the expense of the people. This is exactly want the founding fathers wanted to avoid. Tell answer me this. How does Bernie expect to avoid future politicians from abusing the new power they now have? Remember, now the federal government will control healthcare, education, jobs, infrastructure spending on top of what it does now (and a few that I probably miss). So what is Bernie's plan on that?
    1
  54. +Fredrik Herre I actually did give some ideas and what I support. Now I want you to answer the question I just wrote. When Bernie expands the size of the federal government what is going to prevent future federal politicians from abusing that power?
    1
  55. +Ylze Tyr Because you "simple question" won't lead to an intellectual debate. It will lead to you showing your ignorance on the topic. And since I am not a registered democrat or republican I can't vote for the primaries in my state so it does not matter.
    1
  56. +Ylze Tyr Who do I support. I like a lot of positions from Rand Paul but I feel he does not have leadership experience yet. I like John Kasich because of his success in Ohio. But as I said I can't vote in the primaries. Bernie is just a nut. And I noticed the other commenter has avoided my question which is the main concern with Bernie. He is expanding the size of the federal government. And maybe he is doing it for the people? But after he expands the size of the federal government and give it more power, what is going to stop future federal politicians from abusing that power? I can tear apart all of his policies easily. But instead I will go straight for the throat. The idea of state rights is that the more local government is the more control the people have of it. Bernie wants to expand the size of the federal and thus give less power to the states. What is going to stop future politicians from abusing that power? Answer that.
    1
  57. +Fredrik Herre In Europe they have problems as well such as lower quality universities, higher cost of living, debt, and lower productivity. You are ignoring all of that. For federal politicians I focus more on leadership than policies. I don't want the federal government to do a lot because, as history shows, it messes up. Research and organizations have compared and what you see is that each one cherry picks what they want to look at. As that book I linked you did, it showed that the differences between each country is minute. It is arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. People that argue against that cherry pick stats where the differences between the US and other countries, statistically is minute. It is really hard to compared other countries due to the massive differences. Especially how the US has over 300 million people and those countries in Europe have around 5 million. You run out of money when people with money leave. You raise taxes and people with money will move their money to an area of lower taxes.......sound familiar. Germany does a lot of things well, but as I said, different society. They have guards with fully automatic machine guns at airports. Is that the life you want to live? Germany also tracks their students for college. So if the government does not feel you are smart enough than you don't go. That goes against the land of opportunity. France has over 10% unemployment and their high taxes have hurt small business and had investors and those with money moving. Everyone having access to healthcare means nothing if the quality is low. Also, trying to develop a model of a country of 300 million people is not easy. Look at the Obamacare debate. 60 senate democrats could not agree on one law. The one they passed has unfavorable ratings. Is that what you want? "Look up if the fathers wanted money in politics and big banks. They didn't even want a central bank." I agree. You do that by limiting the powers of the federal government, not expanding it like Bernie wants. "Some kind of national universal healthcare is needed." But 60 people could not agree on one. And when they did it got unfavorable ratings and they lost their jobs in the Senate. $250,000 is not a lot of money in some areas. Maybe to you but for someone running a small business it isn't. Plus, Bernie keeps saying the millionaires and billionaires. Now $250,000? Why so low? And why that much? Just because you feel it is a lot of money? That is an arbitrary number at this point. Unions did some work, but the reality is that the growth of the economy did it. Yes, corporations want to make a profit, but they have to treat their employees well. If they don't then a rival company will come in and treat their employees better attracting better employees that grow productivity and makes them better. Businesses don't pay more because they can't afford to. I find it funny that you mentioned Walmart. Walmart already pays above the min. wage (less than 5% of workers earn the min. wage). A a complaint about Walmart is how they don't give enough hours. What you also have to realize is that Walmart is as big as it is because of shareholders. If they cut profits to pay employees more then the value of stocks drop meaning shareholders sell back their shares meaning Walmart has to downsize and will be no more than a Target, or Raley's or Hy Vee. So it can't just cut into profits. It is more complex than that.
    1
  58. +Fredrik Herre Plus, you are avoiding my main questions. When Bernie expands the powers of the federal government, what is going to prevent future politicians from abusing it?
    1
  59. +Ylze Tyr Sorry, I didn't see that. When it is 5 in the morning and I am getting ready to work out I tend to rush. My question is not "stupid and loaded". It is a concern the founding fathers had in the past and is a concern now. Herman Cain was asked the same question when he came up with his 9 9 9 plan. He is creating a new federal tax that can be raised by future presidents. He was asked what is going to stop that. He could not answer. " "increasing the size of the federal government"" in not a "right wing buzz term". When did I ever say government was bad? I support government. More importantly, I support people being able to control the government. Too much government is just as bad as no government. You took what I said and turned it around in that supposedly I hate government and that government is good. It is a black and white thought process which is why you are not supporting progression. " it's not like socializing a couple things is going to give the gov. power to start telling you what you can eat or how many kids you can have." Really? They can raise taxes on certain food on the basis to help healthcare. They can push a law that if it is not passed than funding for healthcare and college will get cut. Need I remind you that liberals are crying about how republicans want to cut Planned Parenthood and Social Security? But I guess you choose to ignore that. It is the federal government that is keeping goods from us unless we let them have their way. Sure politicians take in millions in bribes, but as long as they give us healthcare and college then us as citizens will keep quiet. You need to learn some history. The question makes sense. I am sorry you are ignorant.
    1
  60. +Ylze Tyr Nice logical fallacy of comparing me to Alex Jones.You simply don't get it.  Say the republicans take over and push a new budget that included a tax break for corporations and defunding of healthcare.  Democrats refuse.  So republicans say "ok, we will fund healthcare, but we still want the tax break".  Democrats refuse.  Republicans shut down the government.  The bill passes with the tax break.   How do you feel about that?You may not agree with it but you can't say what they did was wrong.  They have that power and you gave it to them.  Or say democrats want to stop millionaires from donating so republicans counter by threatening to defund college tuition.  You can't say that is wrong because they have that power to change that. You have very little control at the federal level.  I bet you hate it when republicans get in office and do their defunding and tax breaks and what not.  But how are you going to stop them?  You gave them that power?So I will ask you.  When Bernie is gone and a group of republicans take over congress and the presidency and abuses that new power they have, as in defunding healthcare and college education unless they get their way, what is going to stop them? What will stop future politicians at the federal level from abusing their power?
    1
  61. +Ylze Tyr You have this very simplistic mind set that the federal government will just fund healthcare and college education and all will be better.  But I bet you will be the first to complain when republicans come in and do what they want.  You wanted them to have that power.
    1
  62. +Ylze Tyr Let us throw another scenario in there.  Say democrats want to raise the min. wage.  Republicans say they will only if college education will be defunded.  Democrats say no thus no min. wage increase. Is that what you want?
    1
  63. +Fredrik Herre Wow, your wrote quite a bit. Here is my thing. I can take what you said, and Bernie's policies and break them down to how you are mistaken and how Bernie's policies won't work. I won't because I am personally writing a paper and a chapter in my dissertation. I simply don't have time What I will focus on is my number one concern with Bernie Sanders. I will admit, I do support healthcare reform and see how it could possibly work at the state level. Same with "free" college or different tax codes. But that is all at the state level. I told you my number 1 concern about Bernie Sanders. He wants to expand the power of the federal government. "What awesome power is Bernie Sanders giving the federal government? The awesome power of universal healthcare? Is that where your paranoia lies?" Yes, because now you have given the federal government power over our healthcare. Consider this. Say we are facing financial problems and future republicans want to remove funds from healthcare to save money? How would you feel? You may not agree but what they are doing is not wrong, you gave them that power. Same democrats pushed a bill to raise the min. wage and republicans countered by saying they will support it if they remove funds for college. How will you feel? You just gave that power to the federal politicians. Things like this happen. You do remember the "Cornhusker Kickback" with Obamacare, do you? The pure fact is that the more local government is the more control you have over it. I have no problem with government, but too much government is just as bad as not government. At the federal level you, as a citizen have little power and control. "You do realize the government already controls other aspects of society like schools and military much more. " Schools are predominately locally funded. The federal government has very little involvement and states develop their own curriculum and standards. So right there you are showing confusion on what the government even runs. The military is constitutional and the military cannot enforce state law on individuals without consent of the legislature of the state. The federal government was to not have control of individual citizens in any way with the exception of treason. You do know that a federal individual income tax was unconstitutional until 1913? "Have the schooling system or military taken away your home, your car, your children, your job, or your will yet?" As I said, schools are ran by the state. If a state were to take that away than people will move to another state and remain US citizens. Military is constitutional. My home and car are my property and protected by the 5th amendment. Same with my job. "You want the government to serve the people? " Yes, serve the people. That means we have control of the people, not them having control over us. Not them having the ability to take away our healthcare and college unless we do what they say and allow them to get away with taking bribes from millionaires. "Universal healthcare funded by taxes is EXACTLY that. Government serving the people. " Or using it to hold us hostage. Do what they say or they take it away. At the state level you have more control. "What abusing is there to be done with a taxfunded healthcare system?" Defunding it like republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood and social security. "You don't trust the government with a universal healthcare system, but somehow place trust in a totally private corporation for profit driven secluded system? It's not a free market when there is no transparency." You have to have balance. Going from one extreme to the next is not a solution. As I said, too much government is just as bad as no government.
    1
  64. +Fredrik Herre Considering how you did not even know that schools were funded and ran by the states has me questioning your knowledge on the topic. You are supporting a federal program by pointing towards a state ran system. That is not a strong comparison and really supports my case in state rights.
    1
  65. +Ylze Tyr What new power? Really? The power to fund healthcare and education. The power to change tax codes with ease. " republicans shut down the gov. because they didn't get their way on the ACA. is that the fault of the ACA? no, it's the fault of the asshole republicans who shut down the gov.. " Nope, you gave them that power. You wanted federal politicians to have that power and you got it. No different if you gave a drunk driver keys to your car and he wrecked. Do you blame the driver or yourself? " if a healthcare system gets defunded, it won't be the fault of the system, but of the people who defund it. " Nope, you gave them that power. Now my question is how do you stop it? Remember, when republicans shut down the government they still won the midterms. "your only argument here is a hypothetical situation." But yet it happens. You even admitted that it happens. Now tell me how do you stop federal politicians from abusing their power that Bernie gives them?
    1
  66. +Ylze Tyr The logical fallacy you gave was an ad hominem attack. You are comparing me to Alex Jones without getting into detail why. And your use of Alex Jones is a Genetic Fallacy. Just like subjective you don't know what logical fallacies are as well.
    1
  67. +Ylze Tyr https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/ Good source for you to read. I will also be waiting for an answer to my question. How do you stop future federal politicians from abusing the new power they now have?
    1
  68. +Ylze Tyr Now you are going to the black and white argument again, and you ignored what I said earlier. I support state rights. In reality I support some of Bernie's policies at the state level. I do see advantages of socialized healthcare if ran at the state level. I see advantages of "free" college at the state level. The more local government is the more control the people have over it to where it is the servants to society. At the state level people have more control over the government. You lose that control at the federal level. Too much government is just as bad as no government.
    1
  69. +Ylze Tyr It is a fallacy. Sorry you can't read simple definition. Tell me what the definition of subjective is again?
    1
  70. +Ylze Tyr " if you gave your keys to somebody who was NOT drunk and they crash your car, it's their fault" Politicians are drunk with power. Plus, you are to blame for trusting someone else to drive your car.
    1
  71. +Ylze Tyr There is a big difference between state ran programs and federal ran programs. How many federal politicians can you vote for? In my home state only 6 members make up congress. That is it. At the state level I ca vote for a much larger percentage of the legislature than I can at the federal level. So can you. And at the city and county level you can vote for all of them. Now where is your voice stronger? Every state can create a system that works for them. All those European countries have a different system as is, so can the states. There is no one golden plan. Also at the state level you can attend meetings and have a louder voice. Even more so at the city level. There is a city meeting going on tonight in my city at a local school. At the state level you can also move and remain a US citizen. So if a state is not ran well than people will move. Usually people that move are productive which no state wants to lose. So the differences are huge. "what about when somebody moves?" There are already challenges people face in moving. Registering to vote, care registration, different schools (states develop their own curriculum), different taxes and zoning laws and so on. " add another moving hassle of having to transfer your healthcare to your new state's system instead of just keeping the same one like you would with a federal system." Not really. A lot of healthcare insurance companies are national. And if your healthcare is important to you then I suggest you stay. Or you can move to a state with better schools if that is important to you. Life is full of choices. " waiting months for paperwork to clear. " Usually does not take that long at the state level. " you want fifty different systems with fifty different sets of rules. yeah, that's just sooooooo much less complicated, huh? fucking idiot." It isn't complicated. In reality the differences are minute. If you lived in different states like I did you will see that. Driving laws are very set by the states and are very similar. Same with numerous other laws. "you understand nothing about how our government works" Clearly you don't because you don't understand how states already are different in so many ways. As I said, funding for K-12 education is mostly form the states. And every state creates their own standards and curriculum, but I bet you did not know that.
    1
  72. +Fredrik Herre "Then don't vote for politicians who wants to defund healthcare or increase cost of college. " How many members of congress can you vote for? Only 6 come from my state. It isn't as easy as "don't vote for them". Also, with the media being the way it is, how do you expect for people to be informed. It is hard for people to be informed when at the federal level things are as complicated as they are. It makes it easy for federal politicians to pull wool over people's eyes. At the local level you can expose politicians more. Money in politics would not be an issue if the federal government had limited powers. Without power it can't sell it to the highest bidder. At the local level you have more control of government. "At the end of the day you're scared of government." Where did I ever say that? I am a government employee myself working for both the state and county. Plus, there is nothing wrong with being suspicious of the government. Why do you trust the government so easily? " I have outlined the benefits of universal healthcare and provided links to how Sanders healthcare will save the US $5 TRILLION over 10 years," But it is hand wavy. Plus, why do you trust him so easily? You are fear the private sector, but easily trust Bernie and his statements when he hasn't even released a plan yet. "it will make it easier to increase wages" How? How will that increase wages in the private sector? Or create jobs? Again, a hand wavy argument that you fully trust. " it will empower the people because they will not be reliant on benefits at a dead end job. But maybe you find comfort in the current system of misery." I am not in misery. And how will it empower people? I find it disturbing that you are so trusting of the government, and then criticize me for saying I "fear" it when I told you my support of state and local government. Do you not at least question anything the government does?
    1
  73. +Fredrik Herre Why would someone run for federal office? Maybe to help the people? Maybe to oppress them? What do you think? I personally don't want to have the latter be the option. You do. "If he/she break that trust, it is his/hers fault and he/she should be held accountable and be forced to step down." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/ Take that into consideration.
    1
  74. +Ylze Tyr http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/ Take that into consideration
    1
  75. +Ylze Tyr You can compare a state to a European country. I have not problem with. But not the federal government to a European country. I assumed you would have known the difference. "if all fifty states can have a different system, then they can all have the same one" Ran at the state level. "humans are humans no matter where they live. healthcare needs do not differ drastically from region to region. a broken arm gets the same treatment no matter where you live." Just like education is important, but yet states run it. And states pay for most of the roads, and law enforcement, and create laws such as murder and rape and trespassing and so on. None of those are federal. "fifty different systems would also be easier to corrupt; " It told you how you have more control at the state level. Let me list them again 1. You can vote for a greater percentage of representative at the state level 2. You can attend meetings and have a louder voice at the state level 3. You can directly see what is going on at the state level 4. You can move if you don't like it. No state wants productive people leaving. " less oversight." Nope, there is more oversight actually. " you keep thinking that state politicans can't be corrupted when it happens just as often as it does with federal ones" They can be corrupted. At the state level they are held more accountable. Did you read that link about the 11% approval rating of congress but the 96% retention rate? Man, federal congress is being held accountable with all that oversight I guess.  "your problem is that you want to compare a federal system to individual state systems one at a time instead of all at once. there are WAY more politicians involved if you look at it as all fifty at once." Yeah, it spreads out the power and creates checks and balances. Nothing wrong with that? "more self contradiction. if the differences are minute and the companies are already national, then why can't we have a federal system?" Again, spread out the power. Plus, those companies are private. "you don't need fifty different systems if the differences are "minute"." Yes you do. Spread out the power. Give more power to the people and not just a few........you know, that sounds familiar. Bernie complains about power being in the hands of the few millionaires and billionaires..........and I support spreading out the power to create checks and balances and giving more power to the people with state rights.......hmm..... "you just made an argument for our side" Actually I didn't. I just showed you how I actually am pushing for Bernie's ideas more than Bernie is. I want to spread out the power to the 50 states and into the hands of the people. He wants to concentrate it in the federal government and into a congress with a 11% approval rating and a 96% retention rate, or the hands of the few.
    1
  76. +Ylze Tyr Sanders is a nut because he wants to place the power into the hands of the few, the very problem he is against.
    1
  77. +Ylze Tyr Take into consideration that congress has a 11% approval rating but a 96% retention rate. The reason why is because people like their representatives but not others. So why should other people's representatives make policies for people who 1. Don't vote for them 2. Don't like them
    1
  78. +Fredrik Herre Leadership is important. We lack leadership right now in our current administration. "Being informed is the responsiblity of being part of a democracy." The federal government is not a democracy though. Plus, people can only know so much. That is why we have a government, to manage things us as people can't. You have shown you now little about how government works as is. You are not the minority. There are several things I don't know myself. That is why we have to keep government local, so people can get a greater chance of what is going on first hand. Most people want to mind their own business. That is the pure fact. Nothing wrong with that. People don't have hours in the day to study what is constantly going on in politics. I don't expect them to. You and I don't. Thus we have to create a government that people can control. "There used to be laws that required media to cover different opinons and ideologies equally as much, but those were repealed in the 80's or 90's if memory serves me well. This is again a problem of big money interests." It is called freedom of speech. "Unfortunately the judicial branch didn't do their job when they passed citizens united." You are allowed to do what you want with our own property. The Citizens United ruling was a correct ruling. As I said, if the government has not power to sell then it can't be bought. Money in politics is a symptom of a disease. The disease is a big federal government. "How is saving $5 trillion hand wavy? " Because he does not get into details on how it will happen. "I just don't think they have any business in healthcare" Why do you arbitrarily choose healthcare? "I trust Bernie because of his track record. He has always been fighting for the USA and the workers. " What? A career politician with no private sector experience? Also, why didn't he run for president earlier if he really cares? I do think, at times that this is a retirement plan for him. He is ending his political career as a career politician with a bang. "But I also trust in democracy. " The federal government does not run as a democracy.
    1
  79. +Fredrik Herre People re-elect the same candidate because they like their candidate, just not others. With that said, why would you want a politician from another state making policy that 1. effects people that can't even vote for them 2. effects people that hate them That is another reason why I support state rights. I hate Nancy Pelosi. I am sure you don't like Mitch McConnell. As long as Pelosi does not effect my life then I really don't care that I can't vote for her. But she pushed a healthcare bill that I did not support and it has effected my life. But how do I stop her? I can't.
    1
  80. +Jon Alanoor It is arguably not cheaper.
    1
  81. +Rob McCune http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf An interesting read.
    1
  82. +Zach Cushing-murray http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf This book brings some counter points to that with peer reviewed citations.
    1
  83. +Rob McCune Read the book
    1
  84. +Rob McCune I can do the math, I do have a math minor and a physics degree.
    1
  85. +Rob McCune Considering how you are the ignorant you tell me. Also, I am still awaiting your opinion on Bernie Sanders silencing a protester at his rally.
    1
  86. +iamnotmaddie Read it. It is around chapter 2. The table of contents has listed where it gives a comment on single payer.
    1
  87. +Joe Schmo Nice logical fallacy. How about you read the book, they do cite articles from peer reviewed journals.....or I guess that means nothing to you.
    1
  88. +surgeyX The book cites articles from peer reviewed journals. Robert Oshfeldt said he wrote the book to basically show how arbitrary all these healthcare rankings are that people make. Basically one could argue that the US does have the best system in the world. Also they can argue that they don't. The differences are so minute that you really can't say either way. I use this book as a starting point in debates on US healthcare because it gives me more insight on how to approach the issue. Others, as in those on the left, simply say "look, other countries can do socialized healthcare, so can we". They say that while ignoring the complexity of the issue.
    1
  89. +Rob McCune Nope, I got them at a university. "Also I have no problem with Bernie peacefully removing a peaceful protester unlike Trump who has his brown shirts violently curb stomp peaceful protesters." But why did Bernie deny that man his freedom of speech? Why do you support a guy who hates freedom of speech? I guess you hate freedom of speech.
    1
  90. +Rob McCune Nope, you hate free speech.
    1
  91. +Taylor Trotter I agree. Rob McCune, though, said that Trump was denying people their right to free speech. I said he wasn't with the same explanation you did. Rob said Bernie will never do what Trump did, silencing people at his rally. Now Bernie did, so I am mocking McCune's intelligence. Also, what does the 2nd amendment have to do with this?
    1
  92. +Taylor Trotter I support all of the bill of rights. Bernie, no the other had, hates the 10th amendment.
    1
  93. +Taylor Trotter He wants to dismantle state rights and have the federal government do more than what is allowed. What is funny is that is how corruption happens.
    1
  94. +Taylor Trotter His UHC does not have the states controlling healthcare, it has the federal government.
    1
  95. +Taylor Trotter I did read the tenth amendment. If you want the government to work for the people then you have to keep it as local as possible. Doing so means you can see if it is actually working and remaining the servants.
    1
  96. +surgeyX It is.
    1
  97. +Rusty Shackleford So it is cheaper because you say it is.......nice argument.
    1
  98. +Israel Flores The authors called it their "little book project". Their main goal is that when you run through the numbers you see that the differences between each healthcare system is minute. Trying to rank them and say which one is the best is arbitrary. It also shows how complex the systems are. The book cites peer review articles, so using logical fallacies such as that it came from AEI is not a strong argument against it. I will never say the US has the best system, I will say it arguably has the best. And I will never say that US system is flawless, it has flaws and is not free from criticism. But when people simply say that we should go to universal healthcare, and start pointing towards other countries as example and feel it will make things all better, then they are being very ignorant. I don't buy into online ratings very much on a book like this. It has been my experience, especially seeing the reaction with Bernie Sanders, that liberals (especially young liberals) take advantage of social media. As in a video that praises Bernie on youtube has a lot of likes and one that criticizes him has mostly dislike. Or after a debate it shows Bernie winning with social media but has Clinton winning in the polls. Online reviews of a book that questions socialized healthcare will get poor reviews not surprisingly. Or like the movie Michael Moore Hates America got a 5/10 on IMDB when it did a great job at showing the problems and deceptiveness of Michael Moore.
    1
  99. +Taylor Trotter Actually I went to bed. I have a job and work the next day.
    1
  100. +scott gallagher There are several reasons why people oppose single payer. One, the quality is so much better in for profit. I waited only 3 days for my MRI on my knee, a none life threatening injury. It got be to rehab faster and on the field faster. I am a sports official that really enjoys it and am working on moving up. The fact that I can get care and get better that quickly in the US system so I can go back to do what I want is important. As far as cost? Not much. A couple hundred is it. A colleague of mine from Canada got knee surgery that was rather expensive. I said that if he went to Canada he could get it for free. He said that since it is none life threatening that he could not get it at all. Same how they had to take his cousin to the states to get heart surgery. He said socialized healthcare is great for very basic care as in a basic check up or if you are pregnant. But for specialized or critical care it basically sucks. The waiting lines are long and that is if the care is even available. He said for my knee situation I would have had to wait months, at the very least for an MRI. There are pros and cons to both sides, and in reality the issue is far more complex then what you are making it out to be. The US is a country of 300 million people with several different forms of healthcare. You can't say that what happens in the UK will work in the US, especially since the UK has problems.
    1
  101. +scott gallagher Cheaper but at what cost? I don't mind paying more when I don't have to wait long for care. I put myself in that position to afford it. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Also that book talks about cost
    1
  102. +surgeyX I can say the same thing about cost in the US. I had a friend get hip surgery, after insurance they paid $0. My rehab for my knee was $0. The pure fact is that the US is number one in responsive care, and the stories of wait times being long in countries' with socialize care exist because the fact is that wait times are long. As I said, my colleague could not get knee surgery and his cousin could not get heart surgery unless they came to the US. Let me ask you, how big was the area where you got care in Canada? As in what was the population?
    1
  103. +Israel Flores Sales on books like that are usually low. They are usually bought by people who specialize in that area of research. Add to the fact that it is a PDF does not help. I have a book like that for my research physical chemistry. It has citations from peer reviewed journals. It has limited sales and is available free online. I am the only one of my group to buy it, everyone else downloaded it (poor college students). So pointing at low sales for a book like that means nothing. And the authors don't expect to get much money if at all. It is really no different then when I get a paper published in a peer reviewed journal, I won't see a dime, but it helps with grants.
    1
  104. +Israel Flores I want you to read the book and look at the literature that was cited. When you do with an open mind you will see that the healthcare issue is complicated and that you can't say which country's system in an established country is better. I am not trying to convince you that socialized healthcare is good or bad (even though it will never work at the federal level, but possibly the state or local level), or that the US system is great. What I am showing is that people who debate about the healthcare issue do so blindly and with complete ignorance.
    1
  105. +bohemianwriter1 When that drug company produces better drugs in the future then that is better. Guess what, because of evolution diseases become resistant to drugs so the drug companies are in a constant race to develop drugs that actually work. On sick pay, deal with it. I work sick a lot which is why I am becoming successful. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There are some facts in that book that says otherwise. I will never say the US has the best system. The pure fact is that no one can truly say that one system is better than another. And if you feel that the British system is better then you are living in a bubble.
    1
  106. +Israel Flores You can't cite work in a deceptive way, doing so will get you more or less removed from the academic community. Considering how Robert Ohsfeldt is the chair of the department, and it is for a major university, it is safe to say that he did not present other work in a deceptive way. Plus you can read the sources yourself. And as a person in academics myself if someone misrepresented my work by citing it in a deceptive way, I will call them out. So will my boss an all the other authors on the paper. The WSJ is not an academic study so it is not comparable.
    1
  107. +surgeyX They did. In my hometown of 10,000 people we have a system set up where the hospitals and doctors cater to the people. After insurance it was going to cost around $800, the hospital said not to worry about it. We had another doctor that raised money to build a clinic to give anyone with a sports related injury care at a low price, which is why my rehab was free. He was a sports fan. You had a small wait time due to being in a small town, like in my small town you had people that were willing to take a cut in pay to help people out. That is why I asked. In a larger city you have to wait. There are instances of that happening. Overall the issue is more complicated than what you are making it out to be.
    1
  108. +surgeyX It is in a rural town in Missouri. And wait times exist. People have waited months for MRIs or elective surgery.
    1
  109. +Israel Flores It isn't some random book, Robert Ohsfeldt is the chair of his department at Texas A&M university.
    1
  110. +Israel Flores Read the book. I am not going to spoon feed you everything.
    1
  111. +Israel Flores I am giving you a source of information on the issue. You have to learn facts before you can go to opinions.
    1