Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "YOU Convinced Over 40 Dems To Support Medicare For All" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
takeshii, the issue with Crowder and Potholer is that Potholer wanted what he claims to be a debate. However, Potholer wanted all of Crowder's sources and wanted to know what Crowder was planning to say before hand. Upon knowing that Potholer would be able to Google a rebuttal before having the "debate". That is now how debates work. In a debate you do not know what your opponent is going to say ahead of time. In a debate you should know your topic well enough and be prepared to defend your stance so if your opponent says something incorrect you can call them out on it. Potholer does not understand climate change that well. All he knows what to do is use Google.
To extend, Crowder had a scientist on his show and how did Potholer respond? He didn't because when a scientist makes an argument that differs his opinion on climate change, he has nothing to say. That has happened more then once.
I did not agree with what Crowder said in his climate change video, but Potholer is the person in the wrong here in the end. Crowder gives all of his sources for people like Potholer to criticize. However, Potholer presents himself as some sort of genius. In the end he is a journalist selling his audience fool's gold. He saw what Crowder said, Google a rebuttal, and then presented it in a condescending way. And then he came up with this "debate" issue, which again was not a debate at all, trying to make Crowder look like a fool. But to someone with intelligence Potholer is the foolish one.
Again, I did not agree with what Crowder said in climate change, but Potholer was at the very least not any better. Anyone who claims Potholer is have had wool pulled over their eyes by him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Oh, and Bernie says how he's planning to fund everything that he proposes up on his website; "
I have read it. I have seen questionable citations and vague numbers. Also, he ignores simple supply and demand and ignores that people will lack motivation to work. For example, how do you offer college to all when we already lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, etc? And how do you get more of those things? Why would people work to do jobs like that when they can work a McDonalds and have, according to Bernie a
Living wage
Healthcare
Retirement
Vacation time that is paid
Maternity leave
And so on. Also, if his plan is laid out, why did he not defend it when Cruz criticized it?
" you should be able to google something like that for yourself "
Where should I look on Google? Fox New? Alex Jones? Breitbart? Where? The fact that you cannot offer me resources and instead rely on me to google information is opening up the situation where I will look at those sources. It also shows you have little understanding of the issue.
1
-
" As a degree holder I would never work at McDonald's even if those things were offered to me"
You are just one person. Even at that, what job will you work? Are you willing to go through the stress of earning a doctorate? I am a PhD candidate right now, the work is stressful. That is why only around 2% of the nation have doctorates. You earned a degree in hopes of getting a better job, I assume. But over generations that mentality of pride goes away and the mentality of entitlement comes.
" You are falling into a slippery slope here saying that "if liberals are
just given free shit they won't work" when in reality every liberal I
know does work,"
Really? Again, what career are you pursuing? Look at exit pools. Those with a higher income typically vote for republicans. Sure, they may "work", but at what? How productive are they? How skillful are they?
" As far as Cruz goes, everyone pretty much hates him"
He is a senator. Seems like people like him. Bernie Sanders is a senator, does that mean people hate him as well? They are in the exact same position.
" In fact I probably hate the smug fuck more than I hate Trump."
Good for you, why? I gave reasons why I dislike Bernie. Bernie pushes for a healthcare bill, and when business owners ask how they should pay for it he doesn't care. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and his agenda.
". Every other word out of Cruz during the Republican primary was "god
this or god that." Fuck god, even if he exists he isn't going to do shit
to help us"
I agree, I don't like that either. However, I have yet to see him push for a religious law. Him saying "god" is catering to his voting base who are fundamentalist christians. That is politics.
" If you honestly do not think Cruz and his kind would not cream their
pants at the opportunity to make this a theocracy you are sadly mistake."
Again, what evidence do you have?
"We've pretty well let the free market handle healthcare pre Obamacare. "
Not true. Around 40% of healthcare spending was federal. The payroll tax and medicare and medicaid has created barriers and thus we do not have a free market system. We haven't for decades. You need to understand what free market is. LASIK is a free market system, healthcare isn't.
"You may need to study business. Profit is the number one motive of health insurance companies. "
I agree, but in the competitive market you have to cater to customers to earn a profit. We do not have a free market in healthcare. Insurance companies cannot even compete across state lines. In the competitive market consumers can go elsewhere. If you do not cater to them then you do not get them meaning no profits.
Please study business.
" If it benefits them, they will let you die."
So they will let paying customers die?
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I've studied business plenty. "
By the way you talk I doubt it. Why do you think we have a free market healthcare system?
"This is a moral vs money making issue,"
So is it moral to tell others to work for not only themselves, but for others as well? Is it moral to tax rich people more or force doctors to take on more patients? What I find to be ironic is that ultra leftists talk about morals but never do anything themselves. Are you going to work in the healthcare field?
" You assume that health insurance is like buying a couch or television
set, that these magical state lines are going to make the prices go down
to acceptable levels."
It is. It is a product you buy.
"This is the problem with the privatization of services that are needed to survive, "
You need a lot of things to survive. With insurance it can be used for extreme and unplanned cases that are expensive. The problem is that is not the case with insurance. The reason why is that because of the payroll tax many people get insurance through their employers. Thus the employers can't force companies to compete, they can't pick a plan for them, and since it becomes a form of payment insurance has become healthcare. Insurance should not be healthcare, insurance should be insurance. Like car insurance covers accidents but not oil changes. Healthcare should be paid for out of pocket forcing providers to compete. And for unplanned, expensive treatments that occur should be paid for by insurance. With that you create a situation where many people might not even use their insurance. I have used my car insurance once, but I have done a lot of repairs on my car. With healthcare insurance, if that were to happen then it would be there for people who actually need it.
"I'm not going to play this game of "provide me evidence he wants a
theocracy." It's implied, through intuition one can understand his
stance. "
You need evidence.
"He wasn't for same sex marriage, and the reason a majority of Republican senators cited was their biblical beliefs. "
Not really. Why is government involved with marriage to begin with? You have to consider that. You are changing a culture when you allow gay marriage to happen. That is the concern. And what does society have to gain by allowing it? It goes beyond the bible. Not to be rude but you are too bias to see that though.
1
-
1
-
Kyle is ultra left, that is seen with his constant support of Bernie Sanders.
" If Steven Crowder is gaining viewers and you think that's a good thing, that essentially exposes you for what you are. "
I never said that was good. It is a trend that people are no longer buying into the ultra leftists BS. Right now the political left is extreme. Not saying the political left is always bad, they have had great politicians. Bill Clinton was one of them. But right now they are extreme and the political right are right now more moderate, and people see that.
"It's no secret that Crowder is a liar that manipulates numbers out of context to make them look a certain way,"
He gives all of his sources for you to read and he encourages that.
"I kind of don't believe you about your major "
That is fine, doesn't change reality.
" Though I remain curious as to why you concede that everyone sees
through you on this 'ultra leftist' channel and yet you persist in
making daily or nigh daily comments that are intended to turn into
massive debates that may last weeks, despite knowing that there's no
point."
Two reasons.
1. You learn a lot in discussions. I know a lot compared to the average person because of these discussions and reading them
2. I am trying to help some people who are radicals right now. Kyle is a radical and so are his followers. I support many policies on the left. However, I can't support them when people pushing for them, like Kyle, are essentially idiots. I am trying to pull people to the middle and find a common ground. If you got into a detailed discussion with me on issues you will see that I support a lot of what leftists support, just in a different way.
1
-
" So Sam Seder is also a radical? Jimmy Dore is also a radical? The
Humanist Report is also a radical channel? David Pakman is also a
radical channel? "
Yes.
"Your definition of Kyle being a radical is far too vague"
It isn't because because Bernie Sanders is a radical. However, move that aside. Take their stance on single payer healthcare. How do you implement it without creating a recession? Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Going to single payer will mean destroying many jobs in the healthcare industry leaving people unemployed. Raising taxes will mean that both businesses and individuals will change their spending habits which will lead to a recession. Even if temporary it will be enough to hurt a lot of people. How do you implement single payer without hurting others? None of those people present that.
Also, I showed you how Bernie was a radical by comparing him to Bill Clinton. I will say it again. In 1994 Herman Cain approached Bill Clinton about his healthcare bill and asked how he could afford it. Clinton ran through numbers showing he understood the complexity of business and the challenges they face. And he showed concern for Cain's situation. With that you can have a discussion and come up with a median in policy making. That is why Clinton was a great president. You have to understand the other person's position.
Now compare that to Bernie in how he treated that hair salon owner. When she asked that all Bernie said was that she had to pay. She asked how and Bernie said "I don't know, but you have to pay" basically. He went on to say that he does not know much about the hair business, but that her business should have to pay for healthcare. He did not care about her situation, he did not care to understand the challenges she faces or her revenue and expenses. All he cared about was forcing others to follow his policy.
That is why Bernie and his followers are radicals. They refuse to understand the situation or other person's position. They just want to push what the believe down people's throats. It is ironic considering how Bernie is a guy who continues to say that we need to have a discussion on the issues, but when people try to he deflects and shows he does not understand the issues at all. If you do not understand where your opponents are coming from you are a radical.
"Everybody is biased in some way so you're essentially nitpicking minor
discrepancies when you critique Kyle by calling him a radical, what kind
of Radical is he? "
I am not nitpicking. People may lean one way or another, but if you do not understand the other side's position and why the feel the way they do, then you are a radical. I try to understand other people's positions. People like Kyle don't. Why doesn't he have debates with people from the other side? Why doesn't he have guests on his shows? He literally lives in a bubble.
"Because people want the government to treat them differently based on marital status. "
Government give married people benefits which can be seen as wrong. I am single and choose to be that way because of my lifestyle where I am basically married to my work. Why don't I get tax benefits that married people do? Also, there were ways around the gay marriage issue without making it recognized by government. I say that last part because in reality gay marriage was always legal, it just was not recognized by the government.
" They want inheritance handled differently if they are married or unmarried. "
Legal wills can handle that.
"If the government isn't involved, the marriage loses its point. The
whole point of marriage is to officialize the new family before the
state and its laws."
You can have a family without being married.
1
-
" If you meant they were on your side for this one isolated issue, then
well done aligning yourself with what I would call a radical, a man that
doesn't believe in climate change for fuck's sake.'
Steven Crowder has said that climate change is happening. He, like myself, feel it is not a threat nor that the government is the source to solve this "problem" (again, if it is even a problem). I suggest you understand your opponent's position before you criticize.
Also, what I am saying is that if I were to post these comments on Crowder's videos then people will agree with me since I am writing comments to counter left wing points. Does not mean I am on their side, there are things I disagree with Crowder and his viewers about.
"Also, just to be clear, literally no country that has a NHS type of
system would ever give it up in favour of a free market system. "
That is a culture thing. It is hard to make radical changes like that to a culture. Look how long it took to pass healthcare reform in the US. As a whole the US system is not terrible, it has many advantages. We do not need radical change. Minor changes at the state and local level is all we need. So based on what you are saying the US system is great since changing it is hard.
"The reason for any and all problems with such a system, apart from the
problems that were expected from the beginning, is that American
corporations are trying to lobby for more free market influence. "
Any lobbying is crony capitalism, not free market.
"If you think Bernie Sanders is ultra left, I really don't know what to tell you. He's centre-left."
He is ultra left as he does not understand the other side's position. He is so far gone that he does not understand the challenges private businesses face.
" Pretty much all critically thinking right-wing people are not
religious, support net neutrality, and agree with climate science but
somehow conclude it's not as important as other stuff."
Not really. I know a lot of intelligent religious people. I am not religious myself, but I know many who are and are right wing and intelligent. On climate change the issue is that it is not a threat. It is happening, but how much is man playing a role? And is the current change even bad? Those are questions we do not know. I find it funny how Bernie keeps harping about all these scientists that supposedly say things about climate change, but he has yet to have a single scientist stand next to him, nor has he ever named any.
" Most of them even support universal healthcare"
Not true. Again, 80% of people in Colorado voted against it. Colorado is a left leaning state.
" You support none of that, so who's the radical here and what's left for you to agree with us on?"
I am not a radical as I understand the other side's position on these issues. I understand the benefits of universal healthcare. If you read my comments I will never say that it is terrible but instead I say it has problems. Much like the US system does. I will also never say the US system in overall superior. You, on the other hand, want to push universal healthcare down people's throats claiming it is better then what we have despite researcher showing that it is no better then the US system. You want to radically change the current system we have to gain nothing.
Tell me, how do you plan on implementing universal healthcare without creating a major recession?
1
-
Mrs. Butterworth, you did not understand what I wrote in about implementing universal healthcare. First off, defense spending makes up around 4% of GDP. Pulling out of "unnecessary wars" is not going to do anything at that point. Next, asking the rich to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means, they already pay more) is not a solution as it has been shown that is we take all of their money we still won't be able to pay for it.
But, here is the point you missed. Creating universal healthcare will mean jobs in the insurance business will be lost leaving many to be unemployed. It will mean higher taxes on someone changing their spending habits and all of this will lead to a recession. No matter how long that recession will last it will harm many middle class Americans. So how do you prevent that?
Also, you pointed me to a David Packman video when there are many sources that show that we cannot afford it. Even Cruz ran through the numbers in the debate and Bernie did not deny it.
"You do realize that hair salon lady already owned 5 stores right? How is
it that you own five salons ,want to expand ,but you don't have enough
money to buy healthcare for yourself?"
Like Bernie you do not understand business. Healthcare insurance is expensive. She simply can't afford it for her employees. She owns five because she is expanding as she can afford that. What do you want her to do? Downsize making more people unemployed? Many businesses expand like that because in doing so if one business has a bad month or even a bad year they can allocate resources from another one to keep all of them going. You are not putting all of your eggs in one basket essentially. However, in the end, healthcare insurance is expensive for these companies and they simply can't afford it.
"Maybe if Texas had expanded Medicaid, she could have got subsidies for
her employees, Texas had the option to get federal funding to fund the
expansion. Texas chose to deny it for political reasons. "
They choose to deny it because after a few years the states would have had to pick up 100% of the tab in which they cannot afford.
". Expanding a business costs a lot of money, money which she claims she doesn't have because her profit margins are so thin."
It doesn't cost as much as paying for healthcare insurance. Again, you do not understand how running a business works. Renting out, or even buying a space to work from it not that expensive compared to constantly paying for employees healthcare insurance, many who probably don't need it as they probably get it elsewhere, as from a spouse for example.
" That sounds like a failing business."
I can easily say this. People who can't pay for their own healthcare are failing people. See how easy it is to make childish accusations?
" Go try to get a business loan for $250,000 to expand your franchise
when your other salons have a profit margin so thin you can't even get
personal health insurance for yourself. Go walk into a bank and try to
get that loan. They'll deny you on the spot. I used to work at a bank as
a loan officer, and no responsible bank would loan that kind of money
to a business owner that's basically making no profit. "
She has 5 successful businesses going. Chances are that she got a loan to start them and she paid it off. After paying it off she wants to expand so chances are she will get another loan. I don't believe that you actually worked as a loan officer because her situation is the norm for businesses. She could easily get a loan.
"People are alive because of it when they normally wouldn't be. And guess what? Nobody has died as a result of the ACA."
There are people who are worse off financially. And nothing indicates that people are alive because of the ACA.
"Number one, the ACA makes sure you get a damn doctor. Under Cruz's idea, you'll never even have a doctor. "
Not true. Many doctors do not accept Medicaid and no matter what you can always go to the ER and receive care. The idea that you cannot see a doctor is simply not true.
" You're only given the option of having insurance IF AN INSURANCE
COMPANY IS WILLING TO INSURE YOU. They have the option of saying no"
In the competitive market they will less likely to say no because if they do then those consumers, with money, will go to a rival company. The problem is that we do not have a competitive market with insurance companies.
" So what what good are these "more choice" when if I have an existing
condition all of these numerous insurance.companies are ALL going to
turn me down? "
Because they all won't turn you down as there is an incentive to pick you up as a customer in the competitive market. With insurance, though, I will break down the real way to solve it.
As far as that politfact link is concerned, it did not cover all of what Bernie and Cruz said. Mainly it did not address what Cruz said about how much Bernie's plan will cost. It cherry picked instances in the debate and ignored important point. It only covered a fraction of the debate. Why? What do they have to hide?
"
Debates as they are now, blow and are not helpful. Kyle is right not to
debate on traditional terms. If it was a 5-hour conversation, with no
live audience, and full access to the Internet, Kyle would hold his own
pretty well against any person that happens to be on the other side of
the political spectrum."
I doubt it. Why doesn't Kyle debate anyone?
". Kyle is strictly a news reporter, that's it, not a person who talks about specific topics. "
That is not true.
" Crowder is passionate, and he truly believes in fairy takes, like
free-markets and the Bible, but his fact-wang is pretty flaccid"
I can't recall him bringing up the Bible. You need to present his arguments correctly if you want to criticize him. Also, you have not addressed the problems of the free market.
" It certainly does NOT mean that he lives in a bubble, most of
the news stories (If not all) that Kyle does are just that, news stories
that he reports on,"
Kyle expresses his opinion on the issues. If it were just news then he will just lay out the facts and move on. Instead he gives his opinion. The fact that you do not see that is disturbing.
"Kyle's show is not a debate show format. His goal is to gather up
political information, sift through it to determine the key issues, and
explain them in detail using his knowledge and experience in political
science."
His goal is to give a bias, left wing viewpoint on issues and has gone as far as lying. I called him out on it with evidence many times. The best one was about the abortion law where he said that rapists can make a decision on an abortions. I read the law and nowhere did it say that. It only talked about disposing of the fetus. Kyle lied in that video. And I wasn't the only one to call him out on it.
"If he spent his time arranging guests to debate with, that goal of
sifting through political information would be thrown out the window all
for the sake of Kyle scoring some ego points against an unprepared
guest."
It doesn't have to be his show. He can have a debate on his free time.
"Why is marriage a government issue you're still wondering? We as a
nation encourage people to marry, using tax and other incentives,
because doing so when they are raising children appears to reduce
poverty and crime and improve kids' educational outcomes and men's job
performance. The tax advantage goes primarily to those couples with one
member taking time off from working or cutting back on hours to raise
the kids. We offer Social Security incentives to those who stay married
ten years or more, because longtime married couples take a big load off
the medical and social costs of caring for our elderly. States offer
death tax benefits to the married because they help keep the surviving
spouse and kids together, which has all the benefits of the other two.
The same advantages to society seem to come with same-sex marriages,
too, and some states and other nations are coming around to encouraging
these couples to marry, too."
Good points, however same sex couples cannot have children unless they adopt.
1
-
Mrs. Butterworth, let me explain to you a big problem with insurance companies.
We do not have a free market system in healthcare. The main problem, in my opinion, is the payroll tax. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay employees with healthcare insurance as it is a tax free way in paying employees when they can afford it. I always ask two questions regarding healthcare
1. Why do so many employers pay with insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does insurance equal healthcare?
I gave you the answer to number 1. For number two, the reason why is because insurance is a form of payment, thus people use it for all of healthcare.
Insurance should be for cases that are unplanned and expensive. Compare it to car insurance. You use it if someone totals your car. But you pay for your own oil changes. But with healthcare insurance it pays for everything. Healthcare insurance should only pay for accidents or unplanned illnesses. For routine checkups, pregnancies, elective surgeries and so on, it should be paid for out of pocket. Doing that will force providers to lower prices and improve quality to attract customers.
Right now people are reliant on their employer for insurance meaning the plan they offer is the plan they get. They end up with a generic plan where men have to pay for contraceptives and women have to pay for Viagra. Also, if you switch jobs you have to get a new plan where at an older age you have more pre-existing conditions. Do some of these issues sound familiar?
However, if businesses just paid with a higher wage people can buy insurance plans that suit them and keep it for life. They can get plans that cover only unplanned, expensive situations and other healthcare issues can be covered out of pocket. They can force insurance companies to compete which will lower cost and raise quality.
The problem with you and other ultra leftists is that you do not understand economics. You feel that we have a free market system in healthcare. We don't. We have a for profit system with many government barriers to where the consumer does not have a choice. Right now we have a lot of government involved in healthcare already that is creating problems. But since you do not understand that you feel that we need even more government which will just make our problems worse.
We should push for a more free market system as it is the best system we can have. Centralizing healthcare will only make it worse. I have noticed that the ultra left only talks about cost, never quality when it comes to healthcare. There is a reason why. Their ideas does not care about quality, only costs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Because about 90 cents of every dollar that goes into Medicare goes to
healthcare and not "overhead costs" whereas with private insurance only
about 80 cents of every dollar goes into healtchcare."
There is more to it then that. A lot of that overhead spending by private insurance companies are there to lower healthcare cost, such as fraud prevention. You can't just throw numbers out there without knowing what they mean. Another way that saves money is on disease awareness. Medicare has the CDC for that where private insurance companies have themselves. So you do spend money, it just comes from another sources. So again, how do you save money when you increase demand without increasing supply?
"Also, Greenspan himself admitted that repealing Glass Steagall caused the subprime mortgage crisis."
The Glass Steagall repeal did not cause the recession.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/
"If you really want a free market and small businesses to succeed, break up the big banks. "
No, you let the big banks fail. In a free market you might have big banks. Forcing them to break up is the complete opposite of the free market.
"That way 1. the whole economy doesn't go bust if one of them collapses,
like what happened with Lehman Brothers in 2008, and 2. Government
doesn't have to keep pumping in money to make sure they stay afloat. "
1. Recession happen, they have always happened. They were happening during Glass Steagall. As you can see by the articles I linked there are many reasons for recessions. How we recover is key.
2. Government should not pump money into them as that is not the free market. The free market is letting them fail to where a successful company takes over.
" I should have thought conservatives and libertarians should be happy
about the 2nd one, since right now the government gives the big banks
$80 billion of hard earned taxpayer money every month, but can somehow
never find money for healthcare or infrastructure. "
People like me, who support the free market, did not agree with the bailouts. By the way, it was Obama and the democrat controlled congress that did the bailouts.
"I find it amusing that you called Sanders a radical, since his economic
policies are basically a rebooted version of FDR and the post war
economic consensus."
FDR turned a recession into a depression. We never took more then 5 years to recover from a recession until FDR came along. Since then we still haven't until Obama came. Every recession except for two in this country took around 5 years or less to recover from, including major ones like the Panic of 1873, 1837, and the recession of 1921. In all of those recessions the federal government did essentially nothing to "fix" the economy and we recovered quick. The two recessions that took the longest to recover from were The Great Depression and the recession of 2007. In both cases the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending. It took almost a decade to recover from The Great Depression and we are now just starting to recover from the 2007 recession.
Bernie is a radical. Under his plans we would have had another recession and his solution would have been more government. Under him our economy would have been killed.
". Not to mention that half of the ideas he mentions are the primary
policies in most of Europe, and almost all of them are based on
Keynesian economics."
That is not true as none of his ideas are implemented in those countries. Denmark told him to stop comparing his ideas to their country.
"If there's one thing the last 30 years have taught us, it's that
unregulated free markets, and demand side economics don't work. "
Except regulations have been growing.
"Why not go back to what did work from 1936-1976,"
After WWII you had two things. One, every other country was rebuilding when we weren't giving us an competitive edge. Also, regulations were being removed. However, in the 1970s you had the creation of OSHA and the EPA. You had the increase of the payroll tax and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s. So what is this about less regulations? One top of that, federal government spending was around 7% of GDP before FDR. After WWII it was 14% of GDP, not it is 20% of GDP. The federal government is growing. And before you cry "military industrial complex", in 1950 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now it is less then 4%. So defense spending has been falling while federal government spending was increasing.
You cry about unregulated free market when we haven't had that in decades. We have seen federal government spending nearly double in the past few decades. We have seen the creation of the EPA and OSHA and the expansion of the payroll tax. I have no clue where you get this idea that there are less regulations. There are more regulations now then before the 70s.
If you want to have a discussion you have to understand some basic facts and not make things up.
1
-
1