General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "POLL: Record 62% Of Americans Have Positive View Of Medicare For All" video.

Ugo, when you go to the very core of issues on political issues, the political left bases their arguments on emotions, the political right bases their arguments on facts and reasoning on most issues, especially economic ones. That is not to say that neither side uses emotions or facts and reasoning. Both do. And it does not mean neither side is wrong, we need facts but we are human and are driven on emotions. But when you go deep into the issues the political left will end up going with the emotional argument and the political right ends up going with facts and reasoning. This is why Kyle has to live on these opinion polls with little details. When more details are given less people support medicare for all. In Colorado when more details were given on universal healthcare 80% said no.
2
Roads are mainly funded by the local government. Fire and police are ran and funded locally and 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, those programs are nowhere near as complex as healthcare in terms of cost and how it is ran.
2
Linus, K-12 education is around 5% of GDP where healthcare is nearly 20% of GDP. Also, K-12 education is ran and funded locally. Not a comparison.
2
Or maybe they understand that Medicare for all is a bad idea for numerous reasons. Also, these polls are deceptive and not reliable. If you were to ask these same questions and include cost and tax increases on them the results would be drastically different.
1
Gabriel, I won't save money. I would be spending more. Same with most people. Also, medicare for all will not be cheaper than the system we have now. Sorry, but Prof. Gruber cannot fool me.
1
Ragna saying "healthcare for all" is very deceptive. To start, I want everyone to have high quality healthcare. Reality is that resources are limited. No country provides healthcare to all. So to explain why Medicare for all is not a good idea. Little suggests it would actually be an improvement on what we have. Many point to other countries saying they do it better. However, when you break down the numbers they don't do it better. The US system is on par with other nations. We do many things well and have shortcomings, same with other nations. Next, implementing means government take over of something that is 1/6 of our $18 trillion economy in a country of 320+ million people. That huge of a change in our economy will cause the biggest recession ever in this nation. The reality is this. Our system is great and we should improve on the system we have. If people want universal healthcare they can establish it at the state level. So far every attempt has failed.
1
Ragna, better to go bankrupt than die. The US cannot "easily afford" universal healthcare. Medicare is running out of money right now. We are promoting civility with our military by developing relationships with foreign nations. Most conflict is settled off of the battle field. That is why most of our violent conflict are with terrorists.
1
StrikeWing, insurance is there to counter the inelastic demand. A lot of healthcare is elastic, some isn't. Same with cars. My oil change on my car I did by myself was elastic demand. If someone hits my car it is inelastic where insurance covers it and gives me a car until I get mine fix. You can shop around for insurance in the free market. Issue is that we do not have a free market system in healthcare and all of healthcare is encompassed in insurance where insurance is no longer insurance but healthcare.
1
FrozernWolf150, eating right and exercising can help solve a lot of healthcare problems for people. I have been injured before. I had insurance. Also, I am not saying the current system we have is great. It isn't. In fact, the current system is similar to a single payer system in that it does punish the people who choose to remain healthy and caters to those who don't.
1
Janet, people die in countries with universal healthcare systems as well. Every system has shortcomings. You cancer example is ironic as the US leads the world in cancer survival rate.
1
Name And Address Supplied, saying your country has it is not an argument. Healthcare is close to 20% of our $18 trillion GDP. We have over 320+ million people in our country. Changing something in our economy that is that large that drastically will create the worse recession in modern times. Why? You will be killing jobs for the people in insurance. You will be causing a stock market crash as a lot of stock prices are tied to healthcare. You will have to raise taxes at a high rate causing millions of people to stop spending until they can get their finances in order. Businesses will stop investing because of that. All of that will cause a major recession. This is why medicare for all will not be established. No politician would put themselves in that position.
1
Praxis, those nations did not have 320+ million people. In some cases their economies were not that developed as in the case of the UK where they were rebuilding after WWII when they established the NHS. None of those countries had a GDP over $18 trillion. But like an uneducated fool you did not read that part of my comment. You must have a degree from TYT university, you cannot read.
1
Praxis, you are literally not worth responding to anymore. You have failed to counter my comment.
1
No. Too much dirt on him. Also, just like these polls, when more information is exposed on them there ends up being less support. If you were to ask about these issues and include the cost and tax increases along with them less than 50% would support them.
1
Caleb, he has never been subjected to attack ads. There were rumors that the RNC had a folder 2 feet think of dirt on him such as him stealing electricity from his neighbor. People are not going to vote for a career politician who has never had an actual job in his life, who stole electricity, and wants to raise everyone's taxes.
1
Caleb Tuper, I don't watch InfoWars.
1
Ben H, Clinton did not attack Bernie that strongly because if he would have won there would have been a lot of hate towards him. The RNC was quiet because they wanted Bernie to win as they knew he was the easier candidate. That is why they all laughed when his name was brought up during a republican debate. People, especially in the battle ground states, are not going to vote for a socialist that never worked in his life, who is a career politician, who stole electricity from his neighbor, and wants to raise everyone's taxes to pay for other free loaders like he is. That is the reality.
1
The Mother Flickers, it doesn't matter. Bernie lost and he will never become president. Meanwhile Trump is successful.
1
LaseRamon, you would be paying higher taxes with single payer.
1
LaseRamon, I do have a life and responsibilities so I cannot immediately respond to every comment. I do not know your income, expenses, hourly wage, property value, etc. So in your individual case you could be saving money. In a situation like this there will be people saving money which is why there is any kind of support for these programs to begin with. In my case I would be losing money. I pay $0 towards my healthcare insurance. I see a doctor twice a month and pay $13 each time. So I pay $26 a month in healthcare, that's it. As a whole people will be paying more in some way. The reasons why is because you are adding more people to the healthcare bill which will require healthcare providers to raise prices thus the universal healthcare system will cost more than the current system. People will have to pay more not just for themselves, but for other people as well along with the increase prices. If prices are not increased quality will go down. Look up Prof. Gruber. He helped engineer Obamacare. He made comments that came public years later that basically boils down to the American people are stupid for thinking Obamacare would lead to lower cost. Now he said more than that, but in the end that is what it boils down to. It makes zero sense economically to increase demand without increasing supply and expect prices to drop. Most people will be paying more. Again, in your individual case you may be paying less. I cannot say for your case. But as a whole the vast majority will be paying more.
1
Praxis,I have a math minor.
1
LaseRamon, that is simply not true. Most people are fine. That is why Obamacare was met with so much hate.
1
LaseRamon, I do not know your personal financial situation. I admitted that some people will save money. Bernie's plan is a 4% payroll tax increase. Say you make $80,000 a year. That is $3200 a year you have to pay in taxes. Bernie plan would only cover half of what medicare for all would cost. In a debate against Cruz a guy from Denmark pushed Bernie into a corner and made him admit that he would have to raise taxes on everyone. That includes sales taxes and income taxes. The US has around 30% of its GDP that is taxed. Those Nordic countries tax around 45% with Denmark going over 50%. So Bernie would have to raise the tax rate by 15%. So say you are earning $80,000. A 15% increase on your taxes would be $12,000 a year. However, Bernie wants a progressive tax. So if you earn less than $37,000 you will not see a significant tax increase. Everyone else will. That $37,000 is a little less than the median. So over half of the country will see a significant tax increase of over 15%. Around 55% of people have some of their healthcare paid for by their employer. For me they pay for all of it. So I would go from paying $0 to something in healthcare just by that tax increase. Even if an employer only pays for part of it the employers will stop paying for healthcare so those individuals would end up paying more. On average workers pay around $4300 a year in premiums. Just out of the increase in the payroll tax alone has someone who earns $80,000 a year paying $3200 in taxes. Now add in consumption taxes, higher income taxes, etc., the value becomes higher. We are also not including quality of healthcare, or the fact that Bernie wants to increase the payroll tax on employers by 7% which will mean lower wages. Businesses can avoid payroll taxes by paying lower wages. Lower wages means lower payroll thus lower taxes. In the end it would cost the majority more. Maybe not your individually, but the majority it will.
1
LaseRamon, also, healthcare costs are based on who is covered now. Adding $30 million people will raise cost of healthcare a lot requiring a higher tax. Thus, the 15% increase in taxes is closer to what it would be as opposed to the 4%.
1
LaseRamon, again, I do not know your personal financial situation. I know for me that I would be paying more. I know others who would as well. I know that the majority will. You may not. I would agree that someone who is poor would be paying less, but the money has to come from somewhere. That means the majority will be paying more.
1
C L, two things 1. It does not cost less 2. Even if it did the US citizens are not going to accept a tax increase
1
jeevan, it would cost less.
1
Gordon, the UK has many problems in healthcare.
1
LInus, it isn't that simple.
1
Linus, no country covers everyone. The UK has just as many, if not more shortcomings than the US.
1
mezzaninex, just looking at healthcare spending is not a solid argument. We pay more because 1. We have more R&D. We lead the world in R&D which is vital in healthcare due to how little we know and how quickly diseases can evolve 2. We have the best advanced care in the world. That is why we are number 1 in cancer survival rate 3. We have many government regulations that drive up the cost As for the stats as in infant mortality and so on. The issue there is that there are more factors that influence those stats than just healthcare. For example, we have a higher obesity rate than the UK. Obesity increases the chance of pre-term births and pre-term births increases the chance of infant mortality. Another problem of infant mortality is that countries define them differently. Now as a whole the UK and the US define them almost the same. But any minor differences can lead to changes in those numbers. The average infant mortality rate, by CIA estimates, is 28.2/1000 world wide. The standard deviation is 25/1000. That is high as we are factoring in very poor countries but at the same time we are well above the world average. Compare us to developed nations is pretty much picking fly shit out of pepper. Yes, the difference between the UK and the US is 2/1000. There are many factors that can influence that difference besides healthcare. It is the same in that many countries have a higher life expectancy than us. But if you remove car accidents and murders from every nation the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
1
Phillip Evans, no country covers everyone as resources are limited. What happens is that you have longer wait times and lower quality. Yes, people are "covered" on paper. But what happens on paper and in reality are different. The WHO ranking is arbitrary. It compared the US and UK to countries like Malta. Is that a valid comparison? Also, it was criticized so much they have not created a new one in almost 20 years. To answer your last question where am I wrong? I am giving counter arguments. There are people who die or become worse off in Australia on waiting lists. Were they "covered"? If they were why did they die? Why didn't they see a doctor?
1
mezzaninex, I never said the UK's system is worse than the US. If I did then please quote me in saying that. Next, I do not deny the facts. The reality is that just regurgitating facts is only part of the issue. Being able to analysis them logically and understand what the mean under different conditions is important. Compare it to the progress in education and specifically Bloom's Taxonomy. At the very bottom you learn basic facts, as you move up you learn how to analyze them, then you have synthesis which is applying the facts you learn to other elements, and then evaluating which is arguing your opinion based on different ideas and criteria. In education at the very basic level in kindergarten you learn "site words". As you move up you learn how to create sentences, then how to make paragraphs, how to write essays and so one. Or in my field, science. You learn, say the atom. The parts of it as in the neutrons, protons and electrons. Then you learn about their functions and role in the atom, then you eventually go up to there being an entire book called the "Physics of the Atom" that is a college text book. And after college you do your own research if you go to grad school. This is not to be rude but you are near the bottom on this issue. You are just presenting two data points, cost and infant mortality. I explained to you why cost is so high and how it is not all bad. In infant mortality I explained to you the factors beyond healthcare that influence those numbers. I take those facts and go deeper. You are at an elementary school level of thought and I am at an undergrad college level of thought here. This is why you are replying back say that I "lost the argument". You have no argument. You are still on the playground and you are taking your ball and going home.
1
Praxis, do you have any argument besides providing insults?
1
Phillip Evans, saying my arguments are "wrong" is not an argument in itself. To start, people do die for "elective" care in Australia like they do in other countries. If they don't die they become worse off due to longer wait times. I believe I cited a paper that did a study in New Zealand about that where that paper referenced another study from Canada on that issue. Something like a knee injury may not be "life threatening" to an outsider, but to the person who has it that injury could very well greatly influence their life. If I need knee surgery I want it quickly so I can rehab and get back to work and to my activities and be productive. I do not want the government saying "we feel it isn't life threatening so you have to wait". To me it is my life. The longer you wait to fix those issues the worse they become and the mental repercussions start to build as well. That is a problem with calling those types of care "elective". To an outsider they are elective, but for the person involved they aren't. Also, you just agreed with me that every country lacks resources, so people do die because of that. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare over 7000 people died or were not contactable a year since 2012 while being on waiting list that were classified as "elective" surgery. So what you are saying is wrong. The WHO's ranking is arbitrary. To start, it is valid to compare the US and Australia to a country like Malta? Next, what are their methods? Everyone who points me to that source never read the methods nor can understand them. They just blindly follow it as it supports their confirmation bias. Finally, that ranking is arbitrary because anyone can do a legit analysis and create any ranking they want. For example, two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. For infant mortality being obese increases the chance for pre-term births where pre-term births increases the chance for infant mortality. The US has a high obesity rate. You can weigh that in as well. The US is number 1 in cancer survival rate, that is never considered. The US is number 1 in R&D. There are so many ways to look at the data. You should read the book "How to Lie with Statistics".
1
Phillip Evans, even your own government admits that people die on waiting lists for "elective" surgery. You can just it out yourself. Go to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website. Look at "Hospitals Data". Look at the data table entitled "Elective surgery waiting times 2016-2017", and look at table 2.4. People were removed because they die. The information is out there for you to see. Also, you say the WHO "study the relative health care systems" and "measure countless metrics". What metrics did they measure? What were their methods? This is why you have to do character attacks on me as opposed to actually formulating an argument. I know how to find out more information about Australia's healthcare system than you do.
1
Phillip Evans, your character attack is when you asked if I like being wrong all the time. That aside, on that report it is listed as "elective" surgery. That 7000 deaths can be from numerous "elective" surgery. I question if they are "elective" when people die. They seem pretty important to me. I will be fair, many do die from more than just the ailment they are waiting to cure. But you have to be 100% honest, some die due to the ailment they are waiting to get cure. The term "elective surgery" is very broad when you read it. One is "unlikely to deteriorate quickly" which is hard to determine unless you get it looked at to begin with. One case in the UK was a girl with headaches. It was considered to be migraines so an MRI was delayed for months and ended up being a tumor where she died. As for people getting the private option, only the rich can afford that, at least in the US. In comparison 90% of students in K-12 attend public schools. Why? Because the middle class cannot afford higher taxes plus the tuition for a private option. They cannot afford to pay twice for education. The WHO has valuable material, but that ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in almost 20 years. Again, is it valid to compare the US and Australia to Malta, or Iceland? We have football stadiums in the US that can hold the entire population of Malta with room to spare. What motivation does that WHO have to lie? Recognition. The WHO has always favored universal healthcare systems. They are an organization that has very little oversight. Why do they exist? Who created them? Who runs the WHO? I agree that some of their information is valuable, but their information is just one piece of a complex situation. As for the two professors I referenced, no one paid them. Their book is free online. One is from Texas A&M and the other worked for the University of Iowa. The book is called "The Business of Health". But again, what were the WHO methods in creating that ranking? If you cannot explain than you are just blindly following a source to support your firmly held, religious like belief in healthcare.
1
Ugo, it wasn't a study, it was an actual voting result. In 2016 universal healthcare was put on a ballot and 80% said no. Colorado is a blue state that voted for Bernie in the primaries. Thing is that when it was placed on a ballot they also said how much taxes were going to be increased.
1
Justin Griffith, to start, rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do any legit analysis they want and come up with any ranking they want including the US being number 1. For example, the US is number 1 in cancer survival rate, has shorter wait times, if you remove car accidents and murders is number 1in life expectancy, and if you factor in our high obesity rate than we will be ranked very high in healthcare. So my suggestion would be to stop citing arbitrary rankings. They add nothing to the debate. As for the saving $17 trillion, that compared two different studies using two different methods. You cannot compare the two numbers. The $32 trillion number for the cost of universal healthcare admitted that the amount they found was an underestimate as they did not factor in increased demand and shortages in supply.
1
GoinSupaOnEm, it isn't that simple. Just because the government decides to cover everyone does not mean you increase the supply of healthcare. Also, you saying "common sense" is not an argument as there are strong arguments against what you said. More mental health treat: The issue is, besides lack of mental healthcare providers, is the fact that mental health is a very challenging issue to tackle. There is little quantitative data on mental health. It isn't like diabetes where you can take blood sugar readings. It is very personal and there is a culture stigma on people with mental health. Many relate mental health with those who are homeless or can't keep a job where many have a high enough intellect and thus a high baseline and can manage but still have mental health. Americans get treatment: Again, lack of resources. However, the US has high obesity rates. A major problem in the US is that we simply refuse to take care of ourselves. As Bill Maher told Michael Moore, we eat shit. We poison ourselves. We see this especially with the poor. It does not require healthcare to know how to eat healthy. Businesses: The reason why businesses pay for healthcare to begin with is because of the payroll tax. A government tax created the employer based healthcare situation. Businesses would rather pay with a higher wage as it is much easier than paying with healthcare benefits but they don't. For most the tax increases will not save money. The very poor might, but for most the taxes would be higher. Insurance companies do have a lot of power, I agree. However, the reason why is because of many government regulations that killed the free market in healthcare. Also, the government can deny you care as we have seen in other nations. Healthcare is not that simple, it never will be. Just because other countries have universal healthcare does not mean it is the best system. They have many shortcomings as well. Bernie's plan is asinine. He will push for an increase in the payroll tax meaning that employers will pay lower wages. If they paid a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax. Your "counter argument" you gave shows you have little desire to actually listen to the other side so most likely you will ignore my comment.
1
Get Real, where did I lie?
1
Evan, I have watched Kyle a lot and he hardly explains anything. When he criticizes people on the right he makes farting noises and plays with his lips. I also never said Medicare for all is slavery. I said if you make healthcare a right you would have to force doctors to serve others.
1
Evan, I stand by my comment. You claim that government can negotiate drug prices to stay low. My argument is that if the government is going to pay drug companies will jack up the prices. If the government refuses to pay than they will not be offering healthcare to people, so government either has to pay the high price or force drug companies, or any provider in healthcare, give up their goods and services at a low price. That is slavery. "I actually consulted multiple economics" Huh? I think you mean economists. Also many economists will disagree with you. Guess what, economists typically disagree.
1
Evan, I have shown many studies to support my ideas. You just ignore them. Here is one for starters. Read the book "The Business of Health".
1
GoinSupaOnEm, There is no "common sense" here as there is a debate to begin with. I feel that the phrase "common sense" is used by people to pull wool over others' eyes. Or it is a degrading term as if you are saying "if you don't agree with me you are clearly stupid". And I saw that at the end of your comment. Mental health is complicated and a lot of people who need it usually do not pursue it until it is too late because of the stigma and the fact you cannot quantitatively measure it. Ever thought we are rich due to us not having universal healthcare? Also, lack of resources means lack of doctors, medicine, equipment, etc. We have a waiting list for organs. This is why other countries ration care. Read the paper "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" in Chest by Leslie P. Scheunemann and Douglas White. Yes we eat shit. Other countries don't. For example, over 40% of our food dollar is spent eating out where in the UK it is around 20%. That is a reason why universal healthcare "works" in other countries, they simply have healthier lifestyle choices. We don't have to gut social welfare programs, we can reform them and give power to the states. States can manage these programs better as they can factor in cost of living, inflation at the state level, contributions of charities, etc. At times the federal government tries to account for those factors, but it is difficult. If we ran those social welfare programs like Social Security locally then we can save money. There is value in having those programs, but government has to manage money correctly as well. When Bernie was pushed in a corner by a guy from Denmark Bernie admitted he would have to raise taxes on everyone. For regulations read the Mises Institute article "How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive". To me the main one is the payroll tax and how paying with insurance is tax free for employers. Because of that insurance has become a form of payment thus healthcare insurance has become healthcare. People do not shop around for their own plans and use insurance strictly for insurance. Most rely on their employer for insurance and thus it becomes healthcare. They cannot force insurance companies and providers to compete thus prices go up. In the end we do not have a free market in healthcare. The problem with pointing to other countries is that you are ignoring a lot of factors. Denmark for years has had mandatory military. S. Korea has the culture of wanting their kids to be highly educate so they send their kids to private after school programs to simply study where our kids play football and get CTE after school. Norway is a large oil produce to pay for their things. Those Nordic countries have no min. wage and lower corporate taxes where Bernie wants a higher min. wage and higher corporate taxes. You can't just look at one other countries and say "look, it works". It isn't that simply. Their culture and diversity is much different than ours. I listen to policy. The problem with Bernie is that he is pretty much a joke anymore. He repeats the same things over and over again. He rants about how we need to talk about how "we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare as a right". Well, that has been discussed and quickly shot down. Also, that is not a policy discussion statement. It is a statement of wanting to push for universal healthcare. A policy discussion statement would be "we need to discuss about healthcare, the issues surrounding it, and how to improve it". Bernie's remark is simply him wanting to know why we don't have universal healthcare. Well, we can discuss that all we want and never get to how to improve our healthcare situation. He has no desire to keep our current system which is a problem. It is reasons like that and many other why Bernie is a joke to many. It is why Ben Shapiro said that Bernie has no policy substance in his argument. I can write a whole long comment on Bernie if you want showing how he has no policy substance in his arguments. I agree with some of your reforms. We need stricter immigration laws. We need term limits on politicians. No need to remove them when they are done after a while. Ending wars is difficult as most of what our military does is actually working towards peace and civility.
1
Canada has many shortcomings and they do not have better health outcomes. When you break it down the US system is on par with Canada's system.
1
A few reasons 1. It would be more expensive 2. Little suggests it would be better than the system we have now 3. Implementing would end up causing a major recession 4. The US system is still strong in many ways.
1
Ciara, are those countries thriving? We lead the world in R&D and our debt is lower than many of those countries. We are still the super power as well. Those countries lack in advance care which is why the US is number 1 in cancer survival rate. Also, you are ignoring many other factors as well such as culture. Name me one country with 100+ million people that has universal healthcare and an economy as strong as ours. Japan maybe, but they have massive death and they are strong economically because their culture literally works themselves to death. You say they sound like "crap" because you have no argument.
1
Ciara, people on the US does care for others. We do it differently due to our massive size and our diversity.
1
Jesus who? Jesus Sanchez who used to pitch for the Marlins?
1
Ciara, defense spending is less than 4% of GDP. Healthcare is close to 20% of GDP. We can cut defense spending to $0 and it would not put a dent in our debt.
1
F S, except it is not cheaper.
1
Herb, it is actually easier to pay for a state program as you can micromanage those programs more.
1
Greener, you are missing the point of the OP's comment. These polls lack details. If they had details less people would be in support of medicare for all.
1
Linus, that is the point. If you look at polling for taxes many want to tax the rich more and everyone else less. But for medicare for all you have to tax everyone more. I would love to see a poll asking if they support medicare for all along with an increase on taxes on everyone. You would most likely get less support. These polls lack details. That is why they are not matching reality and why groups like Justice Democrats run on these issues and get destroyed.
1
Linus, I agree you don't ask people long questions. But if you simply add the tax increases like you would in a question you vote on than people would react differently. Most people do not understand the issues. During election time more information is given which is why most "progressive" programs fail. People are taught that medicare for all will mean a tax increase on all which people do not support. Also, these polls only poll around 1000 people. That is not a strong indicator of a nation of over 300 million. There is a Scientific American article entitled "How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?" You should read it.
1
Linus, when you go for the emotional appeal than the political right will use facts and reasoning where people are smarter than you think. They will understand that medicare for all is not possible all things considered. K-12 education is ran and funded locally and is very cheap compared to healthcare. It isn't comparable. Most people don't mind paying for K-12 education because the taxes are low to begin with and it is a local community effort.
1
Linus, ran and funded locally means a big thing as local programs are easier to micromanage financially and they are ran in a way to suit the local society. Look at education districts in details and you will see they are funded different. You have different tax rates, different ways to pay teachers, different expenses, etc. It isn't "tax dollars fund it", there is a lot more to it than that. Also, communities get involved in the schools. Healthcare is vastly different. I don't see teachers doing 10 years of post secondary schooling plus residency. Doctors do. Healthcare is much more expensive and much more progressive. Education is easier to control as it is much easier. Parents can motivate their kids to study, push them to get involved. Students have more control and if a student fails they are kicked out. K-12 education also rewards success where universal healthcare will reward failure, so there is that issue as well. You don't study in school you fail. If you become fat with universal healthcare you will still receive care.
1
Linus, Bernie is not honest. A guy from Denmark pushed him into a corner and Bernie admitted he would have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for his things. Healthcare is complicated by its nature. There is a reason why in other countries it is still 10% of GDP. Education is 5% of GDP. People can prevent being fat beyond genetic factors. If you are responsible you can have insurance to take care of your broken leg.
1
Praxis, I never said "muh taxes". Why do you have to lie?
1
Talbott R, there is no point in responding to Praxis. He denies facts.
1
New election results shows that Medicare for all is not a winning campaign trail. Also, nowhere in that poll does it mention anything about taxes, cost, the repercussions, etc. These polls are unreliable. Stop citing them.
1
Herb, I do not rely on Rasmussen polls either.
1