Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "How A Greedy Company u0026 Govt Apathy Caused US Ventilator Shortage" video.

  1.  @btw3344  or a free market healthcare system. It is the payroll tax that led to employer based healthcare.
    1
  2.  @btw3344  the free market will work as you have these things called loans and insurance. You bring up that random stat of $500 but ignore several other variables such as access to a loan, benefits, charities, etc. Right now in my city there is the issue of low income families not having food for their kids as typically the first two meals they receive are at school. The local community is rallying to give food to these kids. You see, our free market system has made it so this nation has a ton of resources to get through a time like a quarantine, or even a time where the poor need help.
    1
  3. The more developed a nation becomes the more service base it becomes. Developing nations are typically farming nations. They then go from farming to manufacturing to service. An major issue we have in this nation is that we have some people in politics that still hold onto the idea that we can bring back manufacturing jobs and thus bring back middle class Americans. However, it wasn't necessarily the trade deals that took away the jobs to begin with. They were being lost long before the trade deals came. It was technology and innovation. That isn't bad as when technology improves people work other jobs. Such as when the tractor took away farming jobs people went to industry. Now they need to go to service. But again, we have a group of politicians that is falsely promoting trade deals, as opposed to the evolution of the economy, took away those jobs. What we need to do is push more people to take on service jobs that are much needed.
    1
  4.  @btw3344  , again,you say saved. Again, what are the benefits? How high of access do they have of a loan? What charities do they have available to? Also, a pandemic is a very rare event. As we have seen communities and governments are taking action on both sides. You are looking at a rare and unusual event to try to challenge something that is the norm, capitalism. Your argument is flawed as this point. As for medical bankruptcies, that number has been overstated many times. It is estimated to be around 100,000 people a year. That is around 0.02% of population. At this point we are looking at the economic issue of "the law of diminishing returns". Sure, a M4A system may make that 100,000 to be zero, but at what cost? There will be a drawback. Not to be rude but you don't seem to understand economics well, so I will give you a very simple example of the law of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. Right now there are around 40,000 deaths due to traffic accidents a year. By lowering speed limits it has shown to save lives. But how low should we go? Say we lower speed limits 10 mph nation wide and it saves 5,000 lives, is that a success? Now say we lower it another 10 mph nation wide and it saves only saves 1000 lives, now is that success? At what point do you simply accept higher speed limits at the small cost of 40,000 people? Sure, lower speed limits may save lives, but at what cost to the economy? Now apply that to healthcare. As of now the US system offers the most advanced testing in the world and thus has the highest survival rates in the world for advanced illnesses. Now there are arguments for and against that. But you need to realize that. So to point to a pandemic as an example of a free market system not working is flawed. That is similar to saying a nuclear war shows capitalism does not work.
    1
  5.  @bulzome664  this is something in both my international business and renewable energy course. Lesser developed nations depend on farming, developed nations depend on service jobs. For example, on low income countries around 27% of their GDP is in agriculture, in middle income it is around 10% where 36% is based on industry. In high income nation only around 2% is based on agriculture, 30% is based on industry and 64% is service. So yes, as a nation becomes more developed it does become more service base. It depends on many factors, education is one of them. Higher income nations also are better educated which is needed for many service jobs such as trade, financial, community services, etc. According to FRED stats manufacturing jobs were dropping since 1979 long before those trade deals. According to FRED stats since 1988 manufacturing jobs were dropping on S. Korea as well. According to FRED stats the percent of those working manufacturing jobs in France has been dropping and was around 12% in 2012. Same trend in Germany. Sorry, but since the 70s I see nothing but manufacturing jobs dropping in these developed nations. China is still developing. They are getting into the range of middle income where most of the manufacturing jobs lie. The gig economy is something very recent so of course it is fast growing. And it is meant to be part time for people who simply want some extra cash, tax free, on the side. The gig economy, until CA ruins it, is tax free if you know what you are doing. But we do need more people in healthcare, research, community service, etc. Again, the issue is that we are not pushing people hard enough. We have people, like you, who falsely feel that manufacturing jobs should exist here when all indications is that technology took them away, and developed nations are more service base than industry base. Also, this idea that a manufacturing job is meant to raise a family off of is rooted on the idea that after WWII people did that. Well, after WWII the entire world was rebuilding, the US wasn't. So we had an economic advantage. But again, in all the developed nations you asked me to look at, France, Germany, and South Korea, they jobs have been dropping since essentially the 70s. In the case of France and Germany the drop has been steady.
    1
  6.  @intransigencex558  depends on what you look at. We spend the most because we have the highest access to advanced testing. That cost money. Other nations spend less because they cap how much care one receives. As for your link, one source they cited was the Commonwealth Fund, a private, special interest group. Do you even know they developed their ranking? While admitting the US is superior in cancer survival rates, they only use life expectancy and amenable mortality. There are flaws in both. One, life expectancy has many factors outside of healthcare. For example, the US, of all the nations on that list, has the highest percentage of blacks where blacks have higher risk of heart disease due to genetic issue. That drags our numbers down. As for amenable mortality, read the two studies entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review." and "Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study" Where they argued that amenable mortality cannot be used as an indicator of healthcare system strength. As for the Harvard study, obesity is due to personal life choices. A Harvard professor did a lottery in Oregon giving half people access to Medicaid and found no improvement in physical health. Higher obesity leads to shorter life and higher rates of premature birth just higher rates of maternal mortality. Overall, there are many factors at play. So saying we have worse outcomes is highly flawed as those who say that point to very raw, and vague statistics.
    1
  7.  Prophet  again, not me. Point to me where I have called taxation theft. If this is how low you have to go to attack me then I am clearly winning.
    1
  8.  @bulzome664  FRED is as accurate as it gets. As for metrics, I will give you the title of the book. It is "Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable Development" by Tatyana P. Soubbotina. Chapter 9 talks about industrialization and postindustralization. Fact is that developed nations are service based. As I shown you with multiple stats, developed nations like France, Germany and S. Korea have been seeing a drop in manufacturing jobs. Actually your Trading Economics source is showing a decline in manufacturing jobs. Did you actually read your own sources? As for automation taking away industry jobs, again, since the 70s industry jobs have been disappearing in developed nations. That was before trade deals. So explain to me where those jobs went? ""But again, in all the developed nations you asked me to look at, France, Germany, and South Korea, they jobs have been dropping since essentially the 70s. In the case of France and Germany the drop has been steady." You used an outdated, discontinued source notorious for its inaccuracies pertaining to measuring foreign economies. Its also contradicted by my more numerous far more recent sources. " But yet your trading economics data literally supports what I am saying. "A primary reason the gig economy picked up was because of the 2008 recession and the inability for people to find full-time work" Uber did not start until 2009. Also, the percent of those working more than one job has been dropping. Again, how many in the gig economy are doing so just for extra cash that is tax free? Everyone I know that does Uber, or any other gig economy do not have to do it. Heck, I am in the gig economy, I do so for fun. "The majority of people are then relegated to working multiple, low-paying part-time jobs in the service sector." What? Stats don't sit well with you. The percent of those working more than one job has been dropping. Again, FRED stats, the percent of workers working more than one job was high in 1997, even higher than the recession. It is now around 5%. Last I checked 5% is not the majority.
    1
  9.  @bulzome664  again, your own stats support my view.
    1
  10.  @bulzome664  again, your own data shows that the percent of workers working in industry has been dropping. In reality in Germany and France it has been dropping steadily where in the US it has been more chaotic. So yes, they show a steady decline. So please explain to me, based on your own data, that since the 70s, industry workers has been dropping. At this point I am concerned about your well being. Are you sure you are not seeing things? It is the same with workers working more than one job in the US. You have not addressed that even though I proved to you that the majority are not working more than one job as you claimed. So are you sure you are OK?
    1
  11.  @bulzome664  what trolling? By your own sources industry jobs have been dropping since the 70s. I can read an y-axis just fine. I see a drop in industry jobs since the 70s, prior to the trade deals. Also, you are ignoring the fact that you said most are working more than one job when I proved that is not true.
    1
  12.  @bulzome664  again, using your own data. France, since the 70s, dropped from 40% to 20%. Germany, since the 70s, dropped from around 42% to 26%. Those are both significant. Also, as I said in the beginning, industry makes up around 30% of GDP. No percent GDP is different than percent of the workforce, but those are similar numbers. Also, I find it ironic how I cited a graduate level textbook and you just pound your fist and cry when I used your own data against you. A drop from 40% to 20% is significant. But go ahead and keep ignoring the fact you can't read a y-axis. ' Really, though, I am concerned at this point. I do feel you are delusional and seeing things.
    1
  13.  @bulzome664  also, please explain to me how 5% is the "majority".
    1
  14.  @bulzome664  you said the majority. Right away you are showing how wrong you are. Again, your data shows that industry jobs were dropping in other developed nations since the 1970s. And as for the 16 year old book, again, we are looking at the past. So the fact that the book is 16 years old is irrelevant. Again, prior to the trade deals industry jobs were dropping. "The data supports my own view. All three of those countries have had stable employment in the industrial sector over the last 25 years" Losing half from 40% to 20% is not stable. If you want to compare to the US, using Trading economics, the US went from around 32% to around 20% since the 70. So they are comparable to France and Germany now. In fact, they loss less than both France and Germany. So again, you are incorrect there. " and one that remains far above that of the US which ranges from anywhere between 15-10 percent" Trading economics says around 20%. "and then by the late '90s and 2000s began to stabilize in between 20-25 percent in France and Germany" From 1995 the US was around 25% and is now around 20%. France, in that same time range, went from around 27% to around 20%, Germany in that same time frame went from 36% to around 27%. The numbers are not looking good for you bud. "to all three of these Western countries and how it was a matter of policy decisions and not these magic economic or technological forces that you've failed to provide evidence for" Plenty of evidence. For example, the tractor removed farmers who transferred to industry. Technology is replacing workers in industry. Listen, we can create millions of jobs right now if we outlaw tractors, but we food productivity will go down. According to a Ball State Study 85% of jobs losses are actually from technology, not trade. Read the Financial Times article entitled "Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade" We are producing more than ever with less people. Also , another Ball State article entitled "The Myth and the Reality of Manufacturing in America" says "Overwhelmingly, the largest impact is productivity. Almost 88 percent of job losses in manufacturing in recent years can be attributable to productivity growth, and the long-term changes to manufacturing employment are mostly linked to the productivity of American factories." So yes, it is technology. Technology replaced the farmer, technology replaced many industry workers. And again, your numbers of France and Germany are comparable to the US. As for China, China is a nation in developing. They are also considered a BRIC nation which are nations in developing with strong economic growth. That is why China is growing so much. Also, as for developing nations being more agriculture and developed ones being more service base, read the World Economic Outlook report from 2018, chapter 3 which is entitled "Manufacturing Jobs: Implications for Productivity and Inequality" Look at Figure 3.2. This is a more recent source since you did not enjoy my first one. "The fact is throughout this discussion you have failed to cite sources for automation, " I just did in a Ball State study. Also, again, the numbers you give me for France and Germany you are not even getting correct. You said that in the US industry makes up around 10 to 15 percent of the jobs when, using the same source you do, it is closer to 20%. You said that since the 90s Germany and France have remain consistent in industry jobs when, in fact, they are dropping. This is not looking to good for you. "you apparently somehow interpret that as a "steady decline" " In consider a drop from 27% to 20% in France, and 36% to 27% in Germany to be steady, especially when the US went from 25% to around 20%. So the US dropped less. I am curious how you are going to respond to all of this now that I showed you, with your own sources, the numbers don't support your narrative.
    1
  15.  @bulzome664  "Seriously big guy, saying things that very obviously give away how lazy of a debater you are and failing to fulfill the most simple request, providing sources, when I've cited more than enough makes it look like you're trolling at this point." I just cited sources and numbers. However, it is well known that technology has killed many jobs (while creating new ones). How about you explain this? How does productivity go up when jobs are being cut? Very basic question.
    1
  16.  @bulzome664  , I just responded with sources like you asked. I find it funny, though, that at the very beginning you dismissed the very simple point that technology caused a lot of jobs to go away. We are producing more than ever with less people. Why? Because of technology. Also, in case you missed it in my comment, again, since 1995 France went from 27% industry jobs to 20%, Germany went from 36% to 27% and the US went from 25% to essentially 19% to be more accurate. And you claim that France and Germany are not at a steady decline? If you do than you have to be honest and say the US is not either.
    1
  17.  @bulzome664  again, those numbers are from Trading Economics, the same source you used.
    1
  18.  @bulzome664  I read what you wrote. You claimed that the US is around 10 to 15 percent in industry jobs. I used your same source in Trading Economics to show it wasn't. I also used your same sources to show that the drop in France, Germany and the US were around the same. When you can't get basic facts straight we cannot go onto opinions. What is your point on the BLS link? Your Quartz article does not counter the Ball State study. Also, I noticed something. I am the one citing academic sources and you are citing.....? You own article says this "It’s not perfectly clear what, exactly, is the culprit behind relatively anemic growth in manufacturing output." They even admit technology plays a role. You article also says this "Why did China have such a big impact? In their 2016 study, economists Justin Pierce and Peter Schott argue that China’s accession to the WTO in 2001—set in motion by president Bill Clinton—sparked a sharp drop in US manufacturing employment. " But again, jobs were going away since the 70s, before China joined the WTO. So I don't see how that article counters the Ball State one. In fact, they cited more studies on how technology led to job less compared to outsourcing. And again, I don't see anywhere about the article talking about the trend starting in the 70s. "Very simple market manipulation and distortion. For much the same reason as wages have been stagnating even as productivity has gone up" Really, so it is all just a conspiracy? Productivity has gone up, no one can deny that. As for wages, they are arguably not been stagnant. The only data to suggest they have been is looking at average wages to CPI inflation. To start, there are shortcomings in CPI inflation such as new technology bias and replacement bias. Next, there are other measures of inflation such as PCE, GDP deflator and CPI. CPI just so happens to be the one to overstate inflation the most which is why politicians use it the most. I don't have it on my computer at home but on my work computer I have two studies arguing how wages have not been stagnant. I agree China does currency manipulation, but why do you think the US is? The standard is still the dollar. Doing manipulation will lead to a global mess. ""Losing half from 40% to 20% is not stable. If you want to compare to the US, using Trading economics, the US went from around 32% to around 20% since the 70. So they are comparable to France and Germany now. In fact, they loss less than both France and Germany. So again, you are incorrect there." I'm going to quote myself now "Yes, that was my mistake did not mean to say the majority. Though that is a point we're heading towards. Point is, job growth is being dominated by low paying, low skill service economy jobs. Many of which are part-time." "All of these and my other sources show relatively stable employment in the industrial sector over the past 12 years."" You talking about a mistake was about people working more than one job. You are completely ignoring the comment I am making about how the US, France and Germany all seen similar drops in the industry sector when you claim that was not true and that France and Germany have been steady compared to the US. So again, if you can't get basic facts straight we cannot begin to go to opinions. "I explained the data, I showed the unique position the US industrial sector has been in compared to other Western nations, " Yes, incorrectly, as I pointed out. Here, I will quote you "All three of those countries have had stable employment in the industrial sector over the last 25 years, remaining anywhere from about 30-20 (give or take) percent of employment. Which is in line with my assertion as to these countries having relatively stable employment in that sector and one that remains far above that of the US which ranges from anywhere between 15-10 percent and the decline since the 90s has been much steeper than any experienced by France or Germany" Which again, as I pointed out, is 100% wrong. One, the US is around 20%. Two, the drop in the past 25 years for each nation has been around 6%. Why are you ignoring this point? I also just quoted you so no going back now. " Don't act as you know more about something than you do and then double down by acting intentionally dense and misusing data the opponent provided while failing to provide sources, its embarrassing." I provided sources. I even used your sources. Why are you ignoring them?
    1
  19.  @bulzome664  This sums it all up, I will quote you again and address my point that you will completely ignore as you know you can't debate "All three of those countries have had stable employment in the industrial sector over the last 25 years, remaining anywhere from about 30-20 (give or take) percent of employment. Which is in line with my assertion as to these countries having relatively stable employment in that sector and one that remains far above that of the US which ranges from anywhere between 15-10 percent and the decline since the 90s has been much steeper than any experienced by France or Germany" Which again, as I pointed out, is 100% wrong. One, the US is around 20%. Two, the drop in the past 25 years for each nation has been around 6%. Why are you ignoring this point? I also just quoted you so no going back now. Doubt you will respond after getting owned like this.
    1
  20. Blame the payroll tax for that
    1
  21. How is this capitalism's fault?
    1
  22.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  so it does cost money.
    1
  23.  Prophet  you are desperate buddy. Why do you have to lie to try to win? BTW, how is the primary election going for "progressives"?
    1
  24. How will M4A solve this problem? You are giving more power to the federal government which is a major cause of a lot of these problems.
    1
  25.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  because resources are limited. Under universal healthcare system they are highly limited
    1
  26.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  yes it does make resources scarce due to lack of a profit. Where is the incentive to develop more goods and services if you won't gain anything? That is why every other nations with universal healthcare systems have lower access to advanced testing.
    1
  27.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  the concept of government? This is what happens when government becomes more powerful. It becomes the masters as opposed to the servants.
    1
  28.  Prophet  again, I keep asking you. When have I ever said taxation is theft?
    1
  29.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  insurance companies are a way to pay for those goods and services. Insurance is there to counter the times healthcare is inelastic. As for the average person, the average person does have high access to high quality of care. That is why healthcare reform is so challenging, the vast majority have access to very high care. And no, in other nations many people are not treated better for less. Other nations deny care. Again, we have the highest access in the world.
    1
  30.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  so government serves the highest bidder. Thus your solution is to allow it to run our education, healthcare, energy, etc? Do you enjoy being abused?
    1
  31.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  insurance is there to counter times healthcare cost become inelastic. The issue is that insurance companies having too much power. That is because it has become a form of payment thanks to the payroll tax. You can thank the federal government for that. Corporations have no power. All they can do is offer you good or a job. Government has power. Limit the powers government has and it can't be bought. Again, you far leftists are in an abusive relationship.
    1
  32.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  I have never seen a corporation put a gun to someone's head and force them to do things.
    1
  33.  @vashtanerata1799  read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas. There he breaks down how the US is superior in access to advanced care and survival rates in advanced illnesses. That is why the US spends so much, we offer more advanced care. Other nations cap how much care one receives. As I said, there are arguments for and against that, but that is the reality. As for your last part of your comment, a personal experience does not represent the norm. But I can turn it on you. In another nation if you are denied an MRI and end up with a tumor or a situation where it is worse than expected, how will you feel?
    1
  34.  @vashtanerata1799  how is it bias? Simply saying it is does not make is so. Also, I am a moderate. I look at the entire issue. I recommend you do as well.
    1
  35.  @vashtanerata1799  then again, you feel that personal experience should represent the norm.
    1
  36.  @vashtanerata1799  so no examples in how he is bias. Also, I never called Sam Seder. All talk and no action I see.
    1
  37.  @masonlight7479  how am I abused?
    1
  38. This is pathetic by Kyle. On the recent "corporate bailout" it was a loan. Also, the Federal Reserve is not tax dollars. You can't compare what the Fed does to an issue like Medicare. Kyle is an economic illiterate.
    1
  39.  C W  I never called Sam. Also, what is wrong with what I said?
    1
  40.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  what was wrong with what I said? You can't look at what the Federal Reserve does and compare it to M4A.
    1
  41.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  because M4A will require taxes to fund it. The federal reserve controls the money supply via two routes, one are adjusting interest rates, the second is buying and selling credits to banks. That's it. It isn't tax dollars and it isn't printing money out of thin air. During time of economic crisis people pull a lot of money out of banks. By law banks can only keep 10% of their reserves. What used to happen is when a bank lost all their reserve they borrowed from another bank. But if every bank is experiencing that well banks go under. This happened under the great depression where people lost all their savings. Thus, what the Fed does is they become the lender to these banks until the economy become stable to which they take the money back. Not to be rude but you always seem to have a strong opinion against me when it comes to these issues. But if you don't understand how the Federal Reserve works I cannot take you serious.
    1
  42.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  , it matters. The Federal Reserve is not a part of the federal government. It is a private entity. So it does matter if tax payers are used to fund it. The Federal Reserve just can't pump money in Medicare as that is not how it functions. Medicare is paid via taxes.
    1
  43.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  kyle did in this video
    1
  44.  @desmondbrown5508  care is rationed in every nation. The reality is that the US is number 1 on access to advanced care and survival rates in advanced illnesses. There are arguments for and against that and I am willing to lay them out for you, but to say that other nations do it better is arguably not true. Mainly, they do it different.
    1
  45.  @therealnoofle5330  no, half the nation does not want M4A. You can point to polls all you want, elections speak for themselves. Also, every nation has problems. My major problem with those who support M4A are not willing to have the difficult discussions and don't realize that difficult choices made in healthcare. They rather throw it out there and left all the healthcare personal pick up the pieces. Really selfish of "liberals" if you ask me.
    1
  46.  @therealnoofle5330  ok, one poll. Meanwhile election results show differently. Also, if you start factoring in higher taxes and lower access to care people will oppose it. As for decisions, Medicare pays 40% less. Under a M4A system healthcare providers will start having to make the very difficult decisions on what they will offer and to whom. For example, just today I saw my therapist. Talking to some other people there while we wait outside (the would not let us wait inside) someone said Medicare will not cover over the phone therapy sessions. Here is the reality, Medicare is heavily subsidized by our private insurance system. That is why healthcare is so expensive. Unlike other nations we actually provide care. Medicare pays 40% less thus private insurance has to make up the difference. Again, who will be making the decisions on who gets care and when under M4A?
    1
  47.  @thepolishlatinofromphilly9709  polled during elections suggest that democrats support a public option and not M4A as written by Bernie.
    1
  48. @Random dude the vast majority in the US do have access to doctors. In fact, the US has the highest access to advanced testing in the world. In other nations good luck getting the MRI or CT scan when you need it. And having to wait is an issue. While waiting people have died or become worse off physically, psychologically and financially. So yes, wait times are a concern. As for Italy being the new Venezuela, I would not go that far. But the far left in the US does want to copy the Venezuela's model, so there is a legit argument there. As for nations doing better, a lot of that have to do with culture and not the healthcare system. In the US we are doing well. Where we are struggling are in high dense areas like NYC. But our individualist culture has it so individuals are not taking proper precautions. Take a lot at all the people partying during spring break for example. As for your wife, she clearly did something wrong. I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. If you go to graduate school in a STEM field you get paid to go. If not than the school did not want you there to begin with. I am being paid to attend college right now. So there is no "high cost of getting a PhD in science" unless you simply was not that good. And as for your wife earning less than a nurse, I find that hard to believe unless, again, your wife is simply not that good. I have friends with PhDs in physics that earn 6 figures in low income areas. They are well off. If your wife is a professor and does publish she should have tenure, or receiving it soon where that is a job guarantee. That is another form of payment. So gain, if your wife is really not earning much she must be very weak in her field. But during my time in graduate school I have seen a ton of unqualified individuals receive PhDs, so I guess your wife is one of them. As for nurses and doctor and the cost of college. It is well known that med school is expensive and a common point is that you simply pull out a loan and pay it off later with a high salary of being a doctor. So cost is not an issue there either. And most can afford college, they simply refuse to go and simply can't. So you have it wrong there as well.
    1
  49.  @therealnoofle5330  you don't want to copy the Scandinavian model. You claim you don't but you don't. For example, they have more of a flat tax compared to us. They have lower corporate taxes, a higher VAT tax, no min. wage, and no wall street tax. Far leftists want a centralized, planned economy want to tax the rich a lot with a high progressive tax system, essentially what Venezuela wants. So you can claim all you want that you don't want Venezuela when, in fact, you do.
    1
  50.  @therealnoofle5330  2000 participates in a nation of over 300 million is not much. Also, as with any poll, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. When you bring up the fact that taxes will go up many say no. Simply saying it will replace the cost of private insurance is not that easy. Many, like myself, pay very little in healthcare right now. So yes, I, and many, will be paying more. As for caring about profits over people, in capitalism to earn a profit you have to serve the people. If you don't no one will buy their product. What incentive does government have? Essentially nothing. So sure, under M4A we may pay less (I doubt it but whatever), but we will also be receiving less as government has no incentive to actually improve and provide the best product out there.
    1
  51.  @karlzipp181  people die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces.
    1
  52.  @therealnoofle5330  local government has more incentive as laws are typically enforced locally and same with schools. But at the federal level government has very little if any incentive. Promote general welfare is just that, promote, not provide. But consider the many times government simply refused to serve the public, especially at the federal level. Why? Because they have no incentive. This is especially true with no competition. But again, back to the local part of government. Looking at law enforcement and public schools, which are ran locally, is a flawed argument when pushing for a federal program. With insurance companies, they don't set the price, healthcare providers do. Drug prices are high because of our massive R&D and also drug companies donate a lot of drugs and resources (such as training) to developing nations. In all, we subsidize the world. Saying it "works" in other nations is flawed as they have many shortcomings themselves. For example, they have less R&D and lower access to advanced testing. Also, you have the issue of culture. Those nations have different cultures than us. And as for being unsatisfied, most in the US enjoy their healthcare insurance. That is what makes reform so difficult. "And either way, why would you want a system that judges whether you're worth being taken care of with the money in your pocket?" M4A will lead to just that. "The very nature of capitalism seeks to find the most many for your buck and if that means charging people thousands of dollars for treatment they have to get in order to live, then they'll do that? Why? For profit." In capitalism in order to profit you have to provide people with a good/service they demand. If not no one will buy it. A major problem we have in healthcare is that it is not a free market system even though many feel it is. "I will reiterate, people who support M4A are aware that taxes will rise that will replace current health insurance and cover ANYTHING whether you had it already insured in your plan or not" It won't cover anything as medicare pays 40% less. Under M4A we will end up being like other nations where care is denied.
    1
  53.  @therealnoofle5330  I agree on profit. But if you charge too much no one will buy it. I agree, competition does keep prices down. In healthcare I also agree there is no competition in insurance, but it isn't because of lack of regulations but too much regulations. For example, it is not legal to compete across state lines. Also, a big one is that healthcare insurance is a form of payment by employers. Most cannot choose their own healthcare insurance as their employer, because of the payroll tax enacted by the federal government, pays their employees with healthcare insurance. I rather be paid a higher wage and force insurance companies to compete. However, government law prevents that. As for negotiating demand when life is in danger, insurance is there to counter that. Insurance is there to take in unplanned, expensive situations. Problem is that insurance covers things one can pay for out of pocket. Why? Because healthcare insurance is a form of payment thus it covers all of healthcare. Healthcare insurance should be like car insurance. Car insurance will cover an accident which is unplanned, but it does not cover oil changes even though it is necessary for a safe, and reliable car. Healthcare insurance should operate the same way but doesn't because it is a form of payment. Look at LASIK eye surgery. Over time it has become cheaper and better. It is not covered by insurance but is paid for out of pocket. Second, M4A depends on the money the government is willing to pay. For example, I went and saw my psychologist yesterday. A couple was there and said Medicare will not cover over the phone therapy, that they had to show up in person. Many therapy sessions are going to over the phone right now for obvious reasons, but Medicare would not cover it. So that what determines will be paid or not. Third, culture has a lot to do with how a system operates and what government programs are put in place. The US, according to Hofstede Cultural Dimension, is a very individualistic, masculine, risk taking nation. Compare that to Finland who is more collective and more feminine. Same with Norway. Norway scores an 8 on masculinity which, the more feminine you are the more the culture thinks about the greater good of society where more masculine society values things like wealth. Good or bad that is the culture. Compare to the US the cultures are more collective and more feminine. Thus their society is willing to have these strong welfare programs. Also, how they implement them as well is key. Nations like Finland and Norway have more of a flat tax compared to the US, a VAT tax, and lower corporate taxes. Them, as a collective society, also are willing to pay for them. The US, with our culture won't. Fourth, Those studies make vague interpretations about the economy and also use numbers in where Medicare pays 40% less. On the economy, many are making the assumption the economy exist in a vacuum as opposed to being all connected. For example, the UMass study had a portion where jobs would be lost in the insurance industry but estimated a cost for relocation. If you force relocation from one city to another you change demand in housing where the homes being moved from drop in value and the ones being moved to go up in value. Hard to guess on that. Also, you are ignoring issues like property taxes. If an insurance company goes away that will be less property taxes for a local community. That will cause issues. So there will be cost elsewhere. On the 40% cut, if you cut pay to healthcare providers by 40% there will be quality and access issues. None of those studies, from the ones I read, even bring that up. Fifth, at the federal level you have far less control over the government. Also, the programs you mentioned are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and is something basically everyone agrees should exist (minus wars but a defense is necessary). Not everyone agrees the federal government should manage healthcare. The federal government has two roles, deal with foreign affairs and handle commerce between states. Let us look at the programs you mentioned Interstate: Commerce between states for travel and the postal service Tax returns: The individual income tax used to be unconstitutional. I will come back to this Enforcing laws: The federal government enforcing laws across state lines because of the commerce clause. If they did not states will become mad Defense: We need a defense so foreign enemies don't take over. As for the incentive, an interstate program is needed for travel and keeping the economy moving. Laws, I gave you the incentive there in that states will sue. Defense, without one foreign nations take over us. But let us look at taxes. Again, federal individual income taxes used to be unconstitutional, it used to be a tax on the states. But it exist and it is thousand of pages long. When was the last time the federal government educated you on the tax code so you can get the most of your return? I have never seen it happen. I had to do it myself. There is no incentive for the federal government to do what is best for people such as educating them on the tax code. Consider that.
    1