Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "DSA Members Press Dem Senator On Medicare For All" video.

Kyle saying "you are wrong" and saying "look at studies" without citing a single one is him dismissing the other side. There are many studies that show how complex the system is. Kyle clearly has not read them or simply dismisses them. This is why there is little progress in healthcare reform. Also, we have a republican majority due to how radical the left is, that includes people like Kyle.
2
A publicly funded election means politicians control who gets the money.
1
jeevan, given people $200 will lead to inflation. You say everyone gets equal amounts. What is going to stop political parties from packing the ballot to get more money? Republicans and Democrats can initially run 40 candidates to get a lot of money and flushing out independents.
1
jake, I can supply many studies depending on the point. To start I suggest the book "The Business of Health" where two professors suggest that a universal healthcare system would not improve what we have now.
1
2ChainsMC, it is difficult to compare healthcare outcomes as they use different methods to measure it and variables outside of healthcare influence those outcomes. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders from all nations the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
1
@2ChainsMC , healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. That is why no academic source has rankings.
1
@zyrrhos , democrats have been radical for years leading to moderate republicans winning. Look at how they acted during the Kavanaugh situation.
1
@Rage_Harder_Then_Relax , nice counter argument with facts and logic. Really changes my perspective on things.
1
mahal3680, Graham acted the way he did after Democrats started calling Kavanaugh a rapist. Democrats did it first. Democrats have been acting like this for a lot time now. When they lose they start smearing their opponents and push to punish them. That is how we got Trump. Other republicans were too PC to say anything where Trump did not care. So people rallied behind him. Now republicans are starting to realize that to fight against democrats you have to call them out on their actions and not be PC. You can say what you want but Kavanaugh is now in the SC and Trump is winning. You may feel I am dumb but I am on the winning side.
1
Bearded Jagger, Clinton was fine. Obama started the wave of radical leftists. Obama had little desire to actually try to understand the other side's perspective. Look at him on the gun issue. He called new gun laws "common sense" with no desire to actually hear the other side on the issue and the arguments against new gun laws no longer making it "common sense". With Obama many started to play the race card. With Obama came the environment of the left refusing to have a civil, intelligent discussion but instead smear and punish their opponents. You list policies when the problem is the left has all of us yelling at each other while they benefit. The political right wants to have a discussion on issue but when they try the left just smears them and gets the crowd angry. Enter Trump who attacks back and now under him things are getting better.
1
Bearded Jagger, Clinton was willing to listen to the other side and work with them. That is how our politicians should act. Obama was a radical and refused to listen to the other side. I can point to Obama's record on the economy. He pushed for a min. wage increase despite his own economic adviser, Christina Romer, saying it won't grow the economy. Also, I love how when there is a policy you disagree with or does not work you label it "right wing". A lot of what you listed can arguably be "left wing". You can have civil discourse with people, you just refuse to listen. You just strawman their position on the environment and guns. The economy is getting better under Trump. There are many indicators of that. Your stat you threw out is very deceptive. What kind of emergency? You have to be more specific.
1
Bearded Jagger, does that 60% include insurance? Or does it include savings? Also, the fact that people refuse to save money is more of a reflection of them being bad at money management and not the economy. So again, I ask you to be more specific. Obama was radical. Not as much as someone like Bernie, but he was radical. FDR was radical and he turned a recession into a depression. A min. wage increase when unemployment is high is radical. Also, to raise it suggesting it will improve the economy is radical when data suggests it won't. I go by stats as well. I go farther than stats as I look at them in many ways. I am a moderate that have looked deep into the issue. Both sides use talking points but the political left does it way worse these days. You gave one with the 60% stat. You gave a stat with no specifics. Noticed how I asked for specifics and gave you situations where that stat is deceptive?
1
Bearded Jagger, what do you want me to Google? The Daily Wire? Wages have arguably not been stagnate.
1
@jojoboko6990 , there are many ways to look at the wage issue. If you look at it with PCE inflation or Boskin Commission adjusted inflation than wages have increased.
1
@zyrrhos , so no source? Here, I will give you one Read the article entitled "Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wage" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote
1
Bearded Jagger, in youtube I looked up wage stagnation and found the learn liberty video entitled "The Real "Truth About the Economy:" Have Wages Stagnated?"
1
Great, now type in "myth of wage stagnation". There are sources there to counter yours. I have read up on wage stagnation, apparently more than you. That is why I point to actual sources and not say "google it".
1
You can google anything you want. That is the problem. You ask me to "google it" shows you can't form an argument yourself. This is why no one talks about wage stagnation as people like you simply say "google it" when the issue is far more complex than that.
1
jojo, there are other indicators as well that suggest wages have not stagnated. For example, benefits have increased. Noticed how most wage stagnation arguments start around the 70s? That is when the payroll tax was expanded. Thus a higher wage meant higher taxes. So businesses paid with more benefits. Also, inflation is hard to calculate as it does not factor in situations such as new products or technology. For example, a new product will enter the store at a high price but eventually drop in price by a lot. The high price is simply because people like the thrill of buying the new product. Technology makes things cheaper. For example, while a car is higher in sticker price cars last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer all which saves money in the long run.
1
Bearded Jagger, there are many ways to look at the numbers. Some ways suggest wages have not stagnated. I suggest you study some more economics, different methods in calculating inflation, and the shortcomings in inflation calculations.
1
jojo, benefits are wages. It is a form of payment. The payroll tax can be a reason for any stagnation. If a company pays a higher wage they pay a higher tax. The payroll tax punishes companies for giving raises. I said wages have arguably not stagnated. I did not make a solid claim. There is data to suggest wages have stagnated. But there is data to suggest it hasn't. There are many ways to calculate inflation and they all have shortcomings. When you use PCE inflation wages have gone up, same when you use Boskin Commission adjusted inflation. And yes, new technology can create a large variable. This is why economists study these things. Also, consider this. If wages have stagnate why have people's lives improved. We have seen an increase in GDP growth and life expectancy.
1
jojo A wage would be better than a benefit, but in the end it is a form of payment an isn't taxed. The payroll tax has increased in the past and continued to do so. Other factors include the Tax Reform Act of 1969, increase in immigration, increase of women in the work force, creation of OSHA, etc. Many government programs and government expansion took place. People point to wage stagnation as the fault of deregulation and the free market when in reality during the 70s government expanded quite a bit. Many economists say that PCE is better. The Fed uses PCE as well. Why is the CPI better? The CPI is arguably archaic and needs to be adjusted. It is impossible to account for every variable. Studies will admit that. Studies will say there are shortcomings in their work. 1. GDP growth is similar to wage growth. Wealth increases for all 2. Life expectancy means the way of living is better. 3. A poor person today is living better than a rich person 100 years ago. That is a fact. I earn $23,000 a year. I have a reliable car, nice meals, my own apartment, etc. Poor people have smart phones, AC, better cars, etc. If wages were stagnate than people would still be in the bad situation they were in the 70s. If wages were stagnate people would not have smart phones. But they do. This is why wage stagnation is arguably a myth. It is also why very few talk about it as many indicators people are better off. Do you want the same wage people earned in the 70s with the same technology?
1
To add, the Boskin Commission showed the CPI has an upward bias in inflation. If you account for that wages have gone up.
1
jojo Benefits are a form of payment, similar to a wage. The tax reform act of 1969 raised taxes on the rich. The argument is that the rich passes the cost onto the middle class in higher prices and lower wages. The issue with CPI and PCE is debatable. This is what makes stats more challenging. You said the CPI can be put out more frequently where with the issue of wage stagnation we are talking about a 40 year trend. So why not use both CPI and PCE? With stats there are many ways to look at them. It is why you have the book entitled "How to Lie with Statistics". Is is why experts debate these topics. You can give two experts the same stats and they can come up with different conclusions. I always feel it is best to look at something in as many ways as possible.
1
jojo, Here is the main point on wage stagnation. If wages have been stagnate than people's lives would not have improved. They have. This is why you never hear a big uproar on wage stagnation because, in reality, society is way better off than they were in the 70s. People drive better cars, they have more technology, they have more information at the palm of their hands. If wages were stagnate than people's lives would not have improved. But they did. People's lives now are better than they were in the 70s. That is why many say wage stagnation is a myth and why very few even talk about it.
1
My point on the poor owing smart phones is legit and shows a major problem in inflation. As technology advances goods and services become better and cheaper which is the same as a wage increase. If I am paying less for a smart phone I have more money for other things. Same with cars. If I am paying less for gas because my car gets better gas mileage I have more money for other things. You my logic is a non-sequitur because you have not legit argument against it. My argument really shows how one can strongly argue how wage stagnation is a myth. You say you want 70's wages with today's technology. What would that look like? Explain to me what that world would look like? What would poor people own? Reminder that no one owned a smart phone in the 70s where now the poor do. Reminder that the poor own better cars than what the rich did in the 70s. So it comes down to what is your standard? And why? What do you have to compare it to?
1
It is.
1
Healthcare is a commodity as someone has to provide it. You can't ignore that reality.
1
Still no strong argument in establishing a medicare for all system. Pointing to polls is not an argument. The fact is a Medicare for all system is not the best route. There is a desire to improve our healthcare system, medicare for all is not the route.
1
CryOn, saying "google it" is not an argument. There are many studies that suggest medicare for all is not better. Healthcare is very complex. Your comment shows why we would not, and should not get a medicare for all system. People who push for it over simplify the issue and that is going down a very dangerous path.
1
Amy, I can. Start with the book entitled "The Business of Health" That is a good start. I can list more studies depending on the talking point. But when Kyle says every study says universal healthcare is the best that is simply not true. I just pointed to a book by two professors that says otherwise.
1
Muhammad, if you remove car accidents and murders from every nation the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. For example, the US is number 1 of OECD nation in obesity. Canada has many problems especially with advanced care and "elective" care where something that is elective is subjective. People have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery in Canada for example.
1
@MuhammadAhmed-qh7ut , people die from every nation due to shortcomings.
1
@dcon9995 , I constantly give evidence. When I do people like you run away.
1
You are not going to get a detailed answer by leftists. To them Medicare for all will magically work. Never mind the complexity of healthcare as a whole. Healthcare is 1/6 of the economy. Going to Medicare for all means lots of jobs in private insurance being gone. It means higher taxes where people will slow down consuming a lot until the get their finances situation. That means less jobs and lless growth and really a major recession will take place. The housing market is 5% of GDP and look at what that did. Now imagine the downfall after 1/6 of the economy falls apart.
1
Zack, read Bernie's Medicare for all bill. It raises taxes on working people with raising the payroll tax. It also outlaws private insurance. Ultra leftists here have not even read the bill. You can find it online as every bill is available online.
1