Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox u0026 Friends Fearmongers About Biden "Creating Millions Of High Wage Jobs"" video.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@squiddler7731 ah, that source, read the one by the CDC entitled
"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020"
Where they say
"Although more excess deaths have occurred among older age groups, relative to past years, adults aged 25–44 years have experienced the largest average percentage increase in the number of deaths from all causes from late January through October 3, 2020. The age distribution of COVID-19 deaths shifted toward younger age groups from May through August (9); however, these disproportionate increases might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."
That age range makes up 3% of "covid deaths". So what are they dying from? And yes, we went under lock downs. Businesses were forced to close. Schools were closed, people lost their jobs. As for my other stat, I was wrong, it is 94% according to the CDC. Read the source entitled
"Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics"
They say
"Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups."
I am citing the CDC like you are. I recommend you do more research.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gsdgsdgdhsadds and read my other comments, the age range with the highest increase were 25-44. So you cannot say the vast majority are attributed to covid as that age group makes up less than 3% of covid deaths. And what evidence do you have that without lock downs the deaths would be in the millions? According to a Penn State study when the number of infected people were reported to be 100,000 nation wide in the US it was really closer to 9 million. Many are infected without knowing.
Where do you get the estimated cost of each death being 9 million dollars? I find that hard to believe.
I consider human lives to be valuable, but reality is that, in the end, we have to make decisions on what is best for most in society. Also, some humans are more valuable than others to say the hard truth. The average age of death from this virus is over 80 years old.. So here we are trying to prevent an 80 year old from dying from the virus when they will most likely die soon to begin with while people in their 20s, 30s and 40s with potentially more value are either dying or are going to suffer long term hardship for years.
Truth is people die. At this point we have to think about what is going to cause more damage, the virus or the lock downs. Reality is we make decisions like this all the time. On average 7500 people die a day, a lot of situation are avoidable, but we never make a big deal about that unless it is a rare event like a school shooting, a plane crash or in this case a virus.
1
-
@gsdgsdgdhsadds were they increasing from a small number? Also, what are they dying from? Why does that age range have an excess?
And the 2 million deaths was prior to knowing how deadly this virus really is. We now know it is not that deadly. Most get it without even knowing.
On the value of life I feel you are not fully understanding it. When someone dies it does not cost society $9 million. Reading the report and the article it is about how much one is willing to spend. Milton Friedman discussed this with the issue of the Ford Pinto that blew up when rear ended and a $10 part would have prevented that. However, Friedman posed the question on what if the part cost a million dollars? Should it be required then?
As the article said, it is subjective. People make foolish decisions all the time that places their lives in danger. They will buy a cheaper, less safe car, or smoke. So it is hard to place a value on a life. But overall it does not cost society $9 million.
You can't compare deaths of covid to 9/11 deaths. 9/11 deaths were from a direct result of a terrorist attack. Covid deaths are more complex in that how many had a weak immune system or were sick to begin with?
"Finally, the economic effect on people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s can be mitigated by a stimulus package from the government."
It is not that easy. A lot are business owners, how do we help them out? Many lost their careers that will be hard to get back. There are psychological issues as well at play. People do need social interaction. They do need to get out of their homes. So it isn't as easy as giving people money. How much money? What do you base if off of?
And Asian nations are simply healthier to begin with. You really can't compare. Lock downs, to me, do not work simply by how contagious this virus is to begin with. What we should have done is open up, protect the vulnerable, and let everyone else mingle and get herd immunity.
1
-
@gsdgsdgdhsadds it is relevant to the larger point. And look at figure 2, with the older crowd excess deaths saw two spikes that corresponded to the two spikes of covid deaths overall. For the age range of 25-44 the excess deaths were flatline, no spike. They were dying at an excess rate during the lock downs.
Worldometer stats are off. According to a Penn State study 9 million were infected in March when only 100,000 were infected. That is because many had the virus and had little to no symptoms, especially early on.
It isn't downplaying the deaths but making the decision on what is more harmful, the virus or the lock downs. Compare it to driving. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can cap speed limits to 15 mph, but as a result productivity in the economy will be very slow .
Not knowing how much to give is important. They gave everyone a stimulus when someone like me still had a job.
Asian nations are simply healthier overall. They wear masks to begin with. And it being socially acceptable is an issue of culture. Look at the history of the US. Taking risks is engrained in it.. People came here by getting on a big boat and going across a dangerous ocean. This nation became a country by people deciding to fight the most powerful army in the world at the time. We expanded by people loading up their wagons and going through danger to head west where 10s of thousands died on the Oregon Trail. We take more risks in the US, that is our culture. Besides, S. Korea is an island, like New Zealand. They were isolated from the beginning here in the US we aren't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorinelson7523 how is it cold? Death is a part of life. Is death a novel thing to you? People die all the time. In life we try to find a way to keep the damage as low as possible. Thus we have to decide what is worse, the virus or the lock downs? If my grandparents were to die with covid I will simply say "while sad, they were 90 years old, they were at high risk to die as a whole to begin with".
How about people losing love ones due to increases in suicides and substance abuse? How about those losing their businesses and careers due to the lock downs? You are focusing on just one thing and not the whole picture.
"I don't understand how YOU don't understand that most of the over 250,000 people that have died from Covid would be alive today if they hadn't caught the virus!"
Actually one can argue against that. 40% of deaths occurred in nursing homes. According to UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 6 month. Chances are those 40% would be dead anyway. Now factor in those who are old and not in nursing homes chances are most of those 250,000 would be dead anyway. Meanwhile, substance abuse is up, divorce is up, suicides are up, businesses are being shut down, careers are being lost, people are going to be suffering for years because of the lock downs. You ask how I can be so cold, I can ask the same from you. How can you be so cold and not care about people leading to substance abuse due to the lock downs and now are going to face years of financial and psychological hardships?
A serial killer is a poor example as that is someone directly killing someone else. The virus is different in that there are other factors at play along with the lock downs causing problems.
"How can you be so dismissive of death by virus? How? Is it any less a death to you?"
I am not dismissive, I am saying there are other factors at play. Someone in their 80s is near death to begin with regardless of the virus. But what about people who lose their lively hood because of the lock downs? Do you not care about them?
40,000 people die a year on average due to traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can cap speed limits to 15 mph, but that will cause more damage. As with this virus, sure, it can kill people like all viruses, but the lock downs are arguably worse now.
1
-
@lorinelson7523 " If the majority people would would have followed the simple safety guidelines from the beginning of the pandemic (wearing a mask in public places & social distancing) we would, by some accounts, have less than half the deaths from Covid that we have had & we wouldn't have to have lockdowns now."
And that is the BS part. The standards kept changing. Wear a mask, lock down, social distance, do this, do that, blah blah blah. It is about control. Look at all these politicians doing a power grab but not following their own orders such as Gavin Newsome or Lori Lightfoot. It has nothing to do with safety or the virus but about a power grab and control. Also, it goes beyond suicides, you have substance abuse, domestic abuse, divorce, etc. I just got out of detox for the second time this year due to substance abuse. During detox we have group meetings to discuss how to not relapse and use again. One person said they volunteered at the animal shelter but guess what, they can't now because of covid not allowing it.
When you shut down the economy to where people cannot socialize, gather, volunteer, do things they enjoy they become depressed. Someone like Gavin Newsome tells people not hold thanksgiving but ends up dining at a fancy restaurant.
"So, let me get this straight---you prefer death to a temporary lockdown?"
One, deaths are overstated, two, this has been going on for 9 months now. Where is the end? I am not seeing it along with others. That is why people are telling the government to fuck off and are pushing to go back to normal. Where is the end?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 to start, I point to lotter winners and athletes as they, typically come from average homes and, in a short time, are given large sums of money. Due to poor money management they go bankrupt.
Next, your first source is all over the place. They give numbers with little to no sources or comparison. For example, on household income, they do not factor in cost of living or various methods of inflation (again, I listed three). Next, they gave a time period starting at 1970. You have to factor in that with improved technology many goods have dropped in prices allowing people to spend their money elsewhere. Take cars for example. Everyone will agree cars today are safer, last longer and get better gas mileage which saves money overall. Thus people can spend their money on other goods/services. Same with electric bills. Due to better insulation energy bills are lower. The internet allows people to read reviews of companies forcing competition and thus lower prices. Your sources mentions none of that.
It talks about wealth which is deceptive. If you read the paper entitled
"Measuring inequality"
In the Oxford Review of Economic Policy they say on wealth
"There are a number of challenges, however, in using wealth to study inequality. First, it is illiquid, so it may not give a clear reflection of one’s immediate access to resources. Second, the easily measurable components of wealth—like financial wealth—are incomplete. Take, for example, a student. In many cases their student debt will outweigh their other financial assets, and so they will have negative financial wealth. However, we would not typically say that they are in a worse position than never having studied at all. The reason is because the student has taken on debt to accumulate human capital, which is valuable as a means to increase lifetime earnings but not typically counted as wealth. Policies designed to reduce wealth inequality could therefore have many undesirable consequences, not least redistributing away from people with zero assets towards those with negative assets. These issues could be addressed by valuing human capital, but this is difficult to do. And if we are going to include university education as an asset, then what about other forms of human and social capital, such as charisma, coordination, health, or one of many other personal assets that can have material worth? Or collective assets, like public schools, hospitals, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds? Ultimately a comprehensive calculation of someone’s wealth is very difficult to measure."
On those two points, someone like Bezos is very wealthy due to ownership in shares of his company. But almost all of it is illiquid thus limiting his access to it. That means he just can't sell it. On the second point a lot of people have negative wealth and are fine. I have negative wealth due to student loans. The homeless guy down the street has essentially no wealth. Based on your source that homeless guy is better off.
So again, your source is all over the place and missing a lot of valuable information..
On healthcare, first it mentions cost. In the US we pay more because we offer more care. We throw everything at people. Now there are arguments for and against that, but we do. Other nations cap how much care one receives. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita.
As for outcomes, factors outside of healthcare influence those. For example, lifestyle and culture. We lead the developed world in obesity which lowers life expectancy and, according to a Stanford report entitled
"Obesity before pregnancy linked to earliest preterm births, Stanford/Packard study finds"
obesity leads to premature birth which increases the chances of infant mortality. So your source on healthcare is missing a lot of valuable information and just glossy over a complex issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 automation has been around for a while. Productivity is up in manufacturing jobs for a reason. And we do advance by outsourcing. People who would have been working manufacturing jobs can go into other fields now. Same as the tractor led to more food production and people went to do something else. Also, other factors are at play such as cost of resources for example. Watch Stephen Michael Davis video on youtube entitled
"Why Do Companies Outsource?"
He has a great analysis. As for min. wage jobs, they are typically worked by younger people and make up a small portion of the overall workforce.
We do have preventative care. But no matter what you may need advanced care.
"with care that is the primary cause for bankruptcy, something that does not exist in other countries, and as of most recent data shows, leaves 68,000 Americans dying yearly due to lack of coverage or under coverage. "
Look up the NEJM paper entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" by Dobkin, et. al
They say
"But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
As for the 68,000 deaths that number is hard to get an accurate value for. To start, 68,000 is a small portion of the overall population. Thus it is prone to high error. Other studies have come out suggesting the number is zero where Richard Kronick did a study entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
That number is basically zero and prof Katherine Baicker said
""So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
Because bad health is associated with poverty. Also, every nation faces amenable mortality. In the review entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality — a literature review"
The author writes
"This implies that the evidence that amenable mortality is an indicator of healthcare quality is far from overwhelming or clear."
Wage stagnation has not been happening. If it were we will still be driving the same clunky cars today, we won't have cell phones, people won't have flat screen tvs.
"leaving the impoverished to need to work multiple jobs to live"
The percent of those working more than one job is low and has been dropping.
"when a single full time job, even in the minimum wage bracket, in previous decades provided for a full family where it can no longer provide for a single person currently"
Not true. To start, almost no one works full time on min. wage job. Next, statistically they are not poor. Most who are poor either only work part time or not at all.
"you support the increasing levels of unnecessary poverty and death through a broken healthcare system foisted upon Americans."
Funny you bring that up and claim I do not know what I am talking about when I am the one providing multiple studies and you provided no studies, only left wing talking points.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 the data shows from automation. Did you even watch the video I recommended? He give hard data that since the 80s required man hours dropped. You talk about restrictions and higher wages but are not looking at the counter point of going to automation and a place were goods and production is cheaper means cheaper goods for others.
"or lost due to times of recession in 2008 or a depression as we're seeing now, are replace nearly altogether with minimum wage jobs. "
The percent working min. wage jobs has been dropping for decades.
"Preventative care is nowhere near the base of our healthcare system, or else we wouldn't have nearly 70 thousand americans dying per year due to lack of coverage"
I debunked that stat. Besides, read the paper by Katherine Baicker entitled
"The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
Where they say
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
So even with access there was no improvement of physical health making them a high risk of death
"Your source cited is now 2 years out of date"
2 years is new, not out of date. It takes years at times to publish data.
On your source they say this
"Studies evaluating the relationship between insurance status and mortality have been limited by the difficulties of reaching sufficient statistical power and of achieving true prospective randomisation.63 Therefore, we also present the estimated number of lives saved by universal health care as a function of the increased mortality risk for uninsured people"
Similar to what I said. 68,000 is low thus hard to obtain accurate numbers. That is why studies ranged from basically zero, to 45,000, to 68,000. That is what Katherine Baicker was saying, it is hard to get numbers that accurately.
"it was enough that a family of 3 was safely above the line"
That is not true. Read the article entitled
"Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?"
They say
"Moreover, the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to$9.50 per hour is unlikely to be any better at reducing poverty because (i) most workers (89.0%)who are affected are not poor, (ii) many poor workers (48.9%) already earn hourly wagesgreater than $9.50 per hour, and (iii) the minimum wage increase is likely to cause adverseemployment effects for the working poor. "
Or a more recent study entitled
"The Effects of Minimum Wages on Low‐Skilled Immigrants’ Wages, Employment, and Poverty"
They say
"Our results provide robust evidence that minimum wage increases are associated with an increase in wages but also a decline in the employment‐to‐population ratio of low‐skilled immigrants of Hispanic ethnicity and Mexican origin. We estimate employment elasticities of approximately –0.1, findings that are robust to controls for policy leads, state‐specific time trends, and endogenous immigrant mobility. "
Also, less than 1% of min. wage workers are over the age of 25. Less than 1% of full time workers earned the min. wage, others earn more. These are BLS numbers.
People are not trying to make a living off of the min. wage.
As for your source, one, they did the old trick of picking 1968 and tied it to cpi inflation as that gives the highest number. Why not PCE which is also used by the Federal Reserve, so just as good as an indicator? And again, there are shortcomings in inflation. One is technology bias. As I said, cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all which saves money. Or we having greater access to information to make better purchases. Again, saves money. Or new product bias. When a new product is introduced into the market, like a new iPhone, the price is high making it seem like inflation on phones is high. Or consider food. Say the price of fish goes up, that makes it appear that food prices go up because one, fish went up due to some shortage, and purchases of other meats happen.
So just saying "inflation" and picking an arbitrary year is a weak argument.
At this point I really question if you read any of these article or just the headlines and a few words at the beginning and go without question.
Did you even know there are multiple ways to calculate inflation and inflation has shortcomings overall? I doubt it..
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 again, jobs were being lost via automation in the 80s, long before the trade deals. That is a simple fact. And again, the outsourcing happened for several reasons such as lower cost of resources for example. It makes goods cheaper for all. In the end more people benefit from outsourcing. Just like more benefited from the creation of the tractor.
Two years is not out of date. The paper I referenced from Katherine Baicker has been cited nearly a 1000 times and continues to do so. Have you even done research and published papers in peer reviewed journals? I have. I have cited papers that are up to 40 years old. Just glancing at your paper you point to it cited work that is over 10 years old. So based on your standard that paper is worthless and outdated. 68,000 is a small number overall, especially if you use it to completely transform our healthcare system. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. What will make that number to be zero would be to cap speed limits to 15 mph, why not do that? Don't you care about those 40,000?
As usual, I doubt you will answer that question as you never do. You just say the same old one liner talking points. There is a desire to reform healthcare and make minor changes. But to completely replace it with single payer simply based off of 68,000 people who supposedly die (where your own source admitted it was difficult to obtain accurate numbers to begin with, do you even read your sources?) is foolish. Just like capping speed limits to 15 mph to save 40,000 would be as well as doing that will cause more damage.
Your CDC source is based on interviews, not actual experimentation like Katherine Baicker's study was. The problem with interviews is that people can say one thing, but put in the actual position they act differently.
Again, why are you avoiding my questions? What method of inflation do they use? And why did they pick 1968?
"Further, the issue is American workers, who make up the majority in comparison to business owners, which is why the use of CPI inflation is the more accurate data point"
That makes zero sense. PCE also uses consumer index, why not use that? Because it does not fit your narrative. It is that simple. But again, what you wrote there makes zero sense and shows your lack of understanding of inflation as a whole. And why pick 1968?
From the BLS
"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about two-fifths of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 6 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of workers age 25 and older."
As a whole, they make up a very small portion of the overall work force.
I find it funny you say I do not know what I am talking about but I am the one providing numerous sources and details and you just give talking points. You have not debunked any of my sources where I have challenged yours with details and other sources. I even use The Lancet source against you quoting it directly where they admitted you cannot get accurate numbers on that issue. Your only excuse on my source was that it was "too old" as in 2 years is too old when your source cited sources that were around 10 years old, and almost all of them are 2 years or older. So by your standard you The Lancet source was citing outdated data and should be ignored.
I do not understand people like you. You change the facts to fit your pre-determined reality. And your reasoning for using CPI inflation is bogus. Besides, your EPI source did not say what method if inflation it uses, so why do you assume CPI?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 you did not lay out any of my sources as "garbage". All you said it was 2 years old. And PCE also describes American's buying habits. And again, inflation has shortcomings as I said such as new technology bias. And again, your EPI source does not even say what method of inflation they used. Maybe they did use PCE? Maybe they used GDP deflator?
Again, many live paycheck to paycheck due to poor money management. And jobs outsourced are not replaced by low wage jobs by higher paying ones. Just like farmers were replaced by the tractor those workers went to factory work which paid more. As in how people going to more tech jobs that pay more compared to factory work. And again, goods and services are becoming cheaper which is the same as a higher wage.
"Hmm, and the entire paragraph before the once you quoted explains their own work and methodology and sourced information to arrive at the number of 68531 deaths per year when we go without a medicare for all system"
And in the end they admitted that it is difficult to get accurate numbers. Also, again, compare it to driving. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can cap speed limits to 15 mph. Do you support that?
With 68,000 that is a small number overall. Going to M4A will mean replacing a system that is 1/6 of our entire economy. So while we may save those 68,000 lives, where even your own study you cited has doubt, how many will suffer due to job loss, or having to move and losing value in their property, or others being denied healthcare for other reasons? Things do not exist in a bubble.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "back then it was 30,000 deaths a year that would have been prevented by Medicare for all, though now with new data, and Trump's administration having lost millions their coverage since he began, we have up to date data, as well as a study that looks into the question of if medicare for all would save lives, which, again, is what this study does"
You are all over the place. On study originally said around 45,000 then a newer study later came out saying it is essentially zero. Seems the numbers are all over the place. Why? Because in a nation of over 320 million people numbers of under 100,000 is minute and prone to numerous variables.
Compare it to this. You have a cup of water and you place an ice cube in it. You will be able to measure a noticeable temperature change. Why? The cup of water is a small amount of water. Now place that same ice cube in the ocean. You will not be able to get a measurable temperature change. Why? Because the ocean is large.
The same is with your death numbers compared to our overall population. 68,000 in minute in the big picture. Completely dismantling our healthcare system as we have it and replacing it would cause a lot more damage. Just like capping speed limits to 15 mph to save the 40,000 a year that die due to traffic accidents would cause more damage. You also keep avoiding that topic so it is safe to say you do not care about human life as you do not care about the 40,000 who die due to traffic accidents. So why do you care about the 68,000? You are a hypocrite.
You clearly do not understand inflation and again, your EPI source does not say what method of inflation it used. I was the one that brought up the different methods. You are avoiding that a well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 sure, but not the EPI one. But why CPI? Again, PCE also uses consumer spending. And why do you continue to ignore the shortcomings of inflation as a whole such as new technology bias for example? Read the Investopedia article entitled
"What are some limitations of the consumer price index (CPI)?"
Compare it to this, people are driving better cars today than they were in the 70s. But based on your standard not only should cars be more expensive, but the quality should be the same because of "inflation". You, like most far leftists, are oversimplifying a complex issue. Please try to keep up.
" Every other study has hovered between 30-45000, the only one saying zero are ones likely as dishonest as yourself and whose methodology I would love to look into, of course the number would rise after the increase of coverage loss under Trump,"
Again, I covered via a NEJM article that even when given coverage physical health does not improve making people at high risk of death. Those without healthcare insurance are typically poor where those in poverty have higher rates of smoking, type II diabetes and obesity, all self inflicted. They are at high risk of death to begin with. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, the ER cannot turn you away. Many people go to the ER and receive care and do not pay which is one reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US, many receive care without paying. I was just in the ER. They billed me and said I could pay there or later. I paid there as it was $200. But I could have opted out, not pay the bill and nothing will happen. Many do that. So the idea that people die due to lack of access is simply false. And the number of uninsured under Trump because people were not forced to buy insurance. When you create a law forcing people to do or not do something you see a difference. For example, the university I go to saw an uptick in students attending 090 math level course, which is an introductory course, to a 100 level course. Why? Because it turned out scholarships offered by the university stopped paying for the 090 courses when they did in the past.
"And we don't need an idiotic comparison that has, yet again, no bearing on the reality of the situation, especially when we have the data on hand, but nice try with yet another attempt at obfuscating things that are completely disconnected with what American workers are experiencing."
What idiotic comparison? It is a valid comparison. We can make radical changes in many situations to "save lives" but it will cause more damage overall. Healthcare is 1/6 of our overall economy. Pushing to radically change it will harm millions and for what? To maybe save 68,000? That is foolish.
"Your general support for americans needlessly dying at a rate of a vietnam war every year is hilariously telling, especially when every major study into medicare for all, even studies bent against the policy, cannot help but show that it is cheaper for Americans"
That is 100% not true. To start, they are not "major studies" as almost all were not published in peer reviewed journals. Next, it does not factor in quality. On one study it uses the fact that Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance. So if healthcare providers receive 40% less they will offer less care. If your employer cut your pay by 40% how will you react? As with most questions I pose I doubt you will answer. Finally, those "studies" make very vague assumptions. Again on the Amherst study threw out numbers with no justification. They threw out a number to help people move to a new area when they have to due to their jobs being lost when private insurance goes away. But you can't predict that. The market will change. The person moving will not be able to sell their old home at a higher price due to lower demand, and due to increase demand they cannot find an affordable home. And that does not factor in retraining for a new job, kids having to adjust to a new school and the psychological factors there and so on. That study does not factor in jobs being lost in hospitals that just handle insurance. I was just in the ER and a detox center. In both places I had to deal with someone talking about insurance and payment. Under M4A bye bye those jobs.
Weren't you the one complaining about jobs being lost due to outsourcing? Now you want to kill jobs via M4A. You complain about intellectual dishonesty on my part, what about you? Under M4A jobs will be lost. The insurance lady at the detox center I was at was named Rebecca. I guess you are going to say screw her. Why is her position important when insurance no longer exists?
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "And getting rid of that payment obligation saves the business untold amounts of money when it is no longer their problem to have to collect and pay for partly out of their pocket as well, which is why businesses have to switch plans to save for themselves as well, as recent data shows that much of pay raises get eaten into heightened revenue costs, again you show you do not know what you are talking about."
Again, watch the bouncing ball here, businesses pay with healthcare benefits as it is a tax free way to paying employees due to the payroll tax. Businesses rather pay with a higher wage, less to manage. Easier to pay with more money as opposed to shifting through plans, telling employees about the plans, etc. But with the payroll tax these businesses find tax free way to pay employees. Just like many individuals, like myself, find a way to get tax breaks.
"It wasn't just the Amherst study, which was the most in depth look at the policy, "
It was hardly in depth and I explained why. None of their numbers are explained and assume that healthcare works in a bubble and is not connected to other parts of the market when that is not true.
"whose methodology has yet to be shown to be improper or inaccurate in their findings as the paper has been out for years now, "
Because it was never published in a peer reviewed journal, so why bother?
Do you understand the peer reviewed process? Basically their study is no different than a blog.
" the Koch brothers' funded study, despite trying to shrink that figure, still found a savings of at least 2 trillion per decade, "
Not true. The $2 million was on the low end to start. Next, it was just of public spending where if you factor in private spending it actually cost more. And the authors even admitted that quality was not factor that if that low end is done, which assumes 40% less pay, quality and access will drop. Did you even read the study? Do you read anything beyond headlines?
1
-
1
-
1