Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Perfectly Explains Our Broken u0026 Corrupt System Even In 1991!" video.

Because it shows no original thought and shows he has nothing but political talking points. When he is pressed on the issues he always resorts to these talking points and nothing else. It makes him look like he never actually done research on the issues.
2
Funny how we allowed more immigrants from Mexico during that time.
2
Dj Luminol , listen to the other side. Try to understand other people's positions. There are many that disagree with him and the policies he pushes for will harm others, he doesn't seem to care. Look at how he treated that hair salon owner during the debate against Cruz. He had no desire to try to understand her situation. All he saw was a business owner and that she must pay. That is not productive.
1
Dj Luminol , the ACA in which Bernie voted for. If Bernie is going to support a law he has to understand that some people will be harmed. Were there some good things in the ACA? Arguably yes. More people were given insurance. But there were negatives. One was this small business owner could not expand. Bernie should, at least, understand her situation. Listen to how Bill responded to Herman Cain in a similar question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=18s Noticed how Clinton understood how a business operates and the challenges they face? Bernie doesn't. He has no desire to learn about the other side's positions.
1
Dj Luminol , than why didn't he understand the challenges businesses face? That is the issue. When Bernie says he wants to have a debate he is saying that he really wants a stage to preach his talking points. There are several arguments against his ideas but he refuses to consider them. If he is going to pass certain laws he has to understand that some will disagree for legit reasons and he should understand why. If Bernie did not agree with the ACA than why did he vote for it?
1
Dj Luminol , if he voted for the ACA than he should take the time to understand people's position who will be harmed in that case. With that small business owner she was hindered in expanding her business. Bernie should take the time to understand her position. It shows he at least cared to listen to people on the other side and sympathize with them but felt that the bill did more good than harm in the end. I can respect that. Bernie does not do that. As for Bernie's healthcare plan, I feel it is way too radical, especially considering how our healthcare system is strong to begin with and minor changes need to be done.
1
@iamdanyboy1 , he is. Especially when you dig deeper on the issues he is talking about and find out that he really has no clue nor desire to go beyond his talking points.
1
Dj Luminol , my ideas in improving healthcare in the US is to push for a free market system. That means getting the federal government out of healthcare with the exception of issues dealing with commerce which is minor to begin with. There is a desire to have government involved in healthcare to some degree, but that varies by area of the country. And I will admit that the free market won't solve everything. To me the free market will solve a lot and the holes can be filled in by the local community either through local charities or local governments. There are several issues related to healthcare and healthcare is very complex. I don't have the answer as no one really does. To say that Medicare for all is the answer to me, in my opinion, is foolish as I feel the federal government cannot tackle something that complex. Remember, they could not even create a website for Obamacare. To me, with how complex healthcare is, it is best left for the states to micromanage the issue and create a system that works for their local society. All the points you bring up are legit. There are holes in our healthcare system and fixing it is not easy. Going to M4A will lead to major job loss. How do you account for that? Healthcare is expensive though, how do we solve that? I feel the states are best at solving it, not the federal government.
1
Dj Luminol , you first question is more complex than what you think. Read the book "Being Mortal" where the author there tackles such issues. Many point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they may live only 5 or 10 months. So if you treat them and they die 5 months later anyway, what was the success? People in that bad of health end up having other problems as well. You fix one and another problem happens. Like an old car, you fix an oil leak and next your coils are bad, than your fuel pump goes out and so on. We should help people but to phrase the question like you did leaves out other variables. The free market increases supply as there is an incentive to produce. It also allows for freedom to produce more and experiment. The free market has always been the main source in progress a society and market. It does not solve all to which I support local societies, either through charities or local government, to fill in the gaps. I agree that healthcare is a problem and insurance companies have too much power, but that is because of the federal government. We do not have a free market healthcare system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system. Also, a centralized government program has many problems in itself. Look at how medicare handled prescription benefits https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/ http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf So to say that Bernie's plan will cover all is simply not true. Let me ask you two questions 1. Why do so many employers pay their employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? 2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
1
@noahjohnson5312 , it is bad because it shows he has not taken the time to actually look into the issues. He just repeats the same talking points over and over again and does not go farther.
1
Dj Luminol , a study out or Oregon showed that even when you give poor people healthcare they still had problems. The reason why is because bad health is mostly associated with poor lifestyle choices, such as diet. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 So one can argue that those variables won't be handled. Also, I encourage you to read the book "Being Mortal". If someone has an illness that is considered curable but still dies from it, chances are they had many issues as well. On my question I will give you my opinions 1. The payroll tax led to employers paying with healthcare insurance. It became a tax free way to pay employees. Just like other benefits. Employers would rather pay with a higher wage as it is easier, but the payroll tax prevents that. 2. Since healthcare insurance has become a form of payment it has become healthcare. What I mean is that healthcare insurance essentially covers everything. There is a desire to have insurance as sometimes demand is inelastic. A case like an emergency is such that. But why should insurance pay for things you can shop around for? Such as an Xray, an MRI, routine check ups, prescription drugs, etc. Same as with car insurance. Car insurance covers an accident when you don't have time to shop around. It won't for new tires even though tires are necessary for a safe car. I have a prescription I take. Why do I need to see if insurance covers it? Why can't I just pay for it out of pocket and shop around? That, to me, is a major starting point in why healthcare is so expensive.
1
@0KevinsVideoDumpster0 , I never said unregulated. There is a desire to have regulations. I just want them to be handled by the local governments, not the federal government. A major question in government is what is the role of government? That is vague and varies from place to place. Some areas may need more government some may need less. So I support government involvement to be at the local level. Take the idea I gave about the free market healthcare system and local communities filling in the gap. In some areas local charities work just fine. I actually worked well in my hometown. But in other areas maybe not, thus a government program is needed. Or maybe that society choices government over charities. Just depends on the people. So yes, government can play a role, but what is the role varies from area to area thus I want local communities to make that decision, not some centralized entity. Yes, the goal of a company is to make money, but to do that in a competitive market they have to cater to the consumer. They can just "fuck" over people because in doing so no one will buy their product. This is especially true with the internet where people can post reviews about a company. If an insurance company mistreats their client a competitor will come in and pick up those clients. I agree the poor will struggle, that is why I support local communities filling in the gaps. You say a free market is a horrible idea but the scenarios you brought up are 1. Simply not true (the idea providers will just screw over people) and 2.. Can be solved locally (the poor not getting care can be solved through local communities)
1
The EC is needed. Those who push for its removal don't know why it exists to begin with.
1
@kimberlymehrer104 , wage stagnation is arguably a myth.
1
Ghost Yuki , when you say inflation you have to consider a couple of things. One, there is more than one way to measure inflation and they produce different results. And two, there are flaws in inflation measurements. This is going to be long but informative. On the first part there are many ways to measure inflation. Most use the CPI, and I will tell you why here in a second. But you also have PCE, GDP deflator, Boskin Commission CPI and so on. They produce different levels of inflation. If you use Boskin Commission CPI or PCE wages have out paced inflation by those measures. And it isn't that those methods are not reliable, they are. The Fed uses PCE all the time. It is that CPI gives the highest inflation rate so politicians and the media use it the most to overstate inflation. Politicians use it because many government jobs wages/salaries are tied to inflation. In the late 80s early 90s the Boskin Commission was developed to find the actual inflation rate for CPI and they found that CPI was overstating inflation by 2 to 3 percent. Government officials ignored it because they know they would not win elections by telling government workers their wages were going to be cut. Imagine you are an elected official and you say to the public that you are going to cut raises to government workers because inflation is not as high as it is listed? While that person may be correct, imagine how the media will portray it? They will use it to smear that politician to where they will lose the election. Positions that are not elected in government are that way because they have to make the correct decision no matter how unpopular it is early on if it is best in the long term. For example, SC justices are in that position. The Federal Reserve Governors are another. They use both PCE and CPI inflation to set interest rates. The Minneapolis Fed argued that PCE is better https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/i-say-cpi-you-say-pce On the second part there are shortcomings in inflation measurements. For example, inflation methods have a difficult time factoring in improvements in technology. A car today may be more expensive in pure sticker price compared to the 70s. But cars today last longer, are safer, get better gas mileage, are easier to drive, etc. All which saves money. Same in that people have smart phones where in the 70s no one has them. You can make informed decisions like that. Or through the internet. You can read reviews of a product before buying. That forces companies to produce better products that will last longer which saves money. Or how you can buy something online which saves money as you don't have to drive around. Another issue is that CPI inflation has a tendency to lump things together. For example, they will lump all meat together. So if the price of fish goes up 100% due to some issues in the fishing industry, CPI will say the price of meat went up even if all other meat prices stay the same or drop. If fish prices go up than people will buy other kinds of meat. Another issue is what is called "new product bias". When a new product hits the market the price is jacked up as people really want it. Take flat screen TVs for example. When they hit the market they were really expensive. But shortly after the price dropped. That jacked up price overstates inflation. And with wage stagnation, many people don't include benefits to it. Here are some sources to look into https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s As a whole, there is data to suggest that wages have been stagnated. But there is also a lot of data and variables that exists that one can use to argue that wages have not been stagnated as well. Someone who just points to CPI inflation to make a strong argument, in my opinion, is pulling wool over your eyes. If you want more details than just ask. But that is why I say that wage stagnation is arguably a myth.
1
@apieinthesky , read my comment to Ghost Yuki. You can argue facts as there are many ways to interpret them. Yes, based on CPI alone wages have stagnated. But when you consider the shortcomings in CPI method and then consider other inflation measurements you get a situation where wages have not stagnated. And I admit there is doubt in what I am saying in that there is also doubt that wages have stagnated. There is an argument to be made on both sides. But to make a strong conclusion in saying that wages have been stagnated and making the conclusion with only one method is rather foolish. To be blunt, someone like Bernie is either one, and idiot himself. Or two, taking advantage of useful idiots who refuse to look into the issues deeper. When you do you find out there is a lot more to it than what Bernie is selling.
1
Ghost Yuki , to add, and not to be rude, but politicians like Bernie are either one, an idiot, or two, taking advantage of useful idiots. Most politicians take advantage of useful idiots so do the media. He says wages have been stagnated because there is data to suggest that. Someone who I consider to be very intelligent is Reich and he pushes the idea. But Reich, I feel, is intelligent enough to understand that others are useful idiots and won't take the time to look farther. As I laid out there are strong arguments against wage stagnation. It is an issue we should look into. But we must do so honestly by looking at the complete picture, and looking at both sides. Bernie does a huge disservice when he doesn't do that.
1
@apieinthesky , so you have actual no counter argument to what I said despite the evidence I provided? I am more than willing to have a discussion. There is plenty of evidence that wages have not been stagnate. Just because the rich got richer does not mean the poor got poorer. And is our income inequality massive? At what point do you consider it to be massive?
1
@Mariofanman100 ,I agree.
1
@apieinthesky , what actions has he taken? Running his mouth is not action.
1
@apieinthesky , ok, and? How many times has he rallied? How much has he donated? Has he started a charity? I don't see any of that.
1
@apieinthesky , you should learn what wealth is. Wealth are assets. The top 3 own so much wealth because of the stocks they own. Bezos, for example, owns the most shares of his company. That actually gives it high value. Stocks are not food, clothes, cars, or even income. They are shares of a company, that's it. It is not liquidated. If Bezos were to liquidate a large amount of his shares that will send out red flags to investors as something is up and the value in the shares will drop by a lot making Bezos from having a lot of wealth to very little. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth because they have no desire to major shareholder of a company. So in the end you need to learn what wealth is. Bernie is actually doing Americans a huge disservice by preaching that talking point as it hinders people from understanding the real situation. Amazon raises their wages due to a strong economy.
1
@apieinthesky , what is wrong with charities?
1
@kimberlymehrer104 , did you read my point on wage stagnation? Also, I do work for a living.
1
Ghost Yuki , that's fine, I agree wages could go higher. My point was that there is a lot more to the argument than just saying "wages have been stagnant". It is a lot more complex than that. Stagnant how? By what standard? CPI inflation? Why not PCE? Do you include benefits? What about the flaws of inflation such as inflation not considering technological advancements? Remember, in the 70s no one owned a smart phone. Cars today are much better than they were in the 70s. There is a lot more to the argument than what is being presented by the shallow talking points of wages have been stagnant. Bernie is doing a major disservice by pushing that point. Charities and help from the local society, in my opinion, is much more effective than federal programs. They can be micromanaged and it brings society together where more gets done as opposed to passing the buck to some centralized entity that people have little connections with. Wealth inequality is, arguably, great and a sign of a strong economy. On that point consider what wealth is. Wealth is not income as wealth is not liquidated. Most wealth from the wealthy is through the shares of their business. People claim that Bezos is a billionaires. In straight income, as in liquidated assets, that is not true. He has billions in wealth due to the shares in his stocks. He can't just liquidate those shares because doing so will cause the value to drop if he does it too quickly. And the fact that he owns those shares is where the value comes from. So the wealth inequality is a complex issue as well. Just pointing to it without further discussion does a major disservice for society as well.
1
Ghost Yuki , to add to another conversation you are having, businesses don't always move jobs overseas because labor is cheap. There is more to it than that. Watch this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvEs6zOJLqk
1
@kimberlymehrer104 , I can't be deceptive enough to work in politics.
1
People will forget about Bernie in 5 years.
1
At the federal level it is arguably not their job. The federal government is there to serve the states, not the people. Also, define "help people". Is helping people creating cradle to the grave entitlements?
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , the states were to serve the people.
1
@ro4eva , Bernie can always donate his money to a needy cause. Why doesn't he?
1
@moestietabarnak , how does he donate his time?
1
Not surprised. Bernie has not changed his talking points for years and has never been challenged until recently. His attitude is really making him look bad.
1