Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Shapiro: Healthcare For All Is 'Bernie Sanders Pie In The Sky'" video.

  1. Because he is smart and he is willing to debate people on the other side, including those in congress. Compare that to Kyle who makes fart noises and refuses to step out of his bubble.
    9
  2. nafaidini, people do die due to not having access to food in the US.
    5
  3. Powered Soldier, the problem with looking at other countries is that 1. You are ignoring their culture 2. You are ignoring many variables involve and are approaching complex issues in a very shallow way You talk about gun violence. Look at the UK. The US has 5 times more murder than the UK. If you remove all gun murders from the US the US has a murder rate that is 2 times higher than the UK. At that point you have to realize our culture is simply more violent. Why? It is complex and a completely different discussion all together. But the problem with the left is that you grossly oversimplify complex issues and ignore stats.
    4
  4. It is a commodity so he is correct in many ways.
    4
  5. The Pragmatic Slytherin, Shapiro explained it in detail and you can hear it in another video. He compared it to bread in the video. He is correct. Of course you don't need furniture for survival, but you need food for survival but yet food is very cheap and highly available. Why? Because food, in comparison to healthcare, is allowed to flourish in the free market.
    4
  6. And every developed country has many flaws in their healthcare system as well. It isn't ideal and isn't without flaws. And overall it is not any better than what the US has. Saying other countries do it is not an argument as you are ignoring numerous variables involved in it. Sorry Kyle, but you ignore objective facts and reasoning on this issue.
    3
  7. Walter Morales, I doubt you counter many of his arguments. You may have countered a couple, but that's it. My experience is that people who claim Shapiro is dumb don't have an argument against him and are simply projecting, like Kyle and his fan base.
    3
  8. Scott Corbett, Shapiro is smart. Just because you disagree with him does not mean he is not smart. I disagree with a lot of very intelligent individuals. I disagree with Elizabeth Warren on almost everything but I would be the first to admit she is smart. Funny how you brought up Hitchens. He criticized people who made "IQ jokes" about the president when in reality Bush, who was president at the time, is very smart like every president is.
    3
  9. If you make it a right it will enslave her.
    2
  10. Otaku Evolution, if people refuse to become doctors than how does the government provide healthcare to people? That is why you cannot make it a right. You can make is a service that the government pays for, but it cannot be a right.
    2
  11. Walter Morales, to start I am not really a Trump supporter. Next, their show is pretty large so chances are they do not have time. Now what topics is Shapiro wrong at? Tell me and I can give it a stab
    2
  12. Kyle would not stand a chance. Kyle repeats the handful of talking points that can easily be debunked. I can beat Kyle in a debate. Make it happen and I will.
    2
  13. Freely Liberal, to start, healthcare is not "free" in other nations. Next, saying it "works" is a very low bar to set. How do they work? By what standard? I can give you aspirin for a broken leg and say you are "covered". I cut off my leg to remove a wart if I wanted to and that would "work", is that the standard you want? There are several reasons for why healthcare functions the way they do in those nations and they have many shortcomings as well. In the US our healthcare system in on par with them. At this point we should improve the system we have now as opposed to trying to completely replace it with a system that is not any better.
    2
  14. Freely Liberal, your concept of insurance is 100% wrong. Insurance is there to counter the inelastic demand of certain situations. In healthcare demand is sometimes elastic where you can shop around and look for a bargain. At times it isn't and that is where insurance comes in. Same with car insurance. Car insurance does not pay for oil changes or tire rotations. It does pay for accidents that are unplanned and expensive. That idea that insurance is a pool is false. Car insurance companies can deny customers if they are bad drivers. You are asking insurance companies to be charities at that point. I am in dire straits in life, but it does not change my stance on the issue.
    2
  15. G Kaiser, there isn't any excessive cost. I agree there are monopolies in insurance companies but that is the fault of government, not the free market. You want to create one big monopoly in healthcare with the federal government where you will pay with lower quality. Rule one of economics, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The nature of insurance is to handle inelastic demand. The problem with insurance is that it has become healthcare as opposed to being insurance. Compare it to car insurance. Why doesn't car insurance cover oil changes or tire rotations? Because you can shop around for those. Car insurance covers accidents. Unplanned, expensive situations. Healthcare insurance should cover unplanned, expensive cases, not cases where you can shop around. I agree 100% that insurance companies are a problem. That is because government regulations gave them too much power where insurance has become healthcare when insurance should be insurance and consumers should force companies to compete. You want to compound that problem by creating one entity with the federal government running healthcare.
    2
  16. "oh my fucking God, that articles says THE SAME THINGS I JUST SAID. That the type of regulations persude mainly by republicans was to SUPPORT few corporations." I agree, that is why I oppose those regulations. Many on the right are mad at the republicans for not doing want they want. As Ann Coulter said, we wanted to get rid of the federal department of education and instead we got NCLB. It doesn't matter if republicans installed them, they are the problem. Adding more government is not the solution. " U genuinely believe there doesnt exist any positive regualtion" They exist, but they vary from state to state and should be left to the states. There is value in having government but we need to be able to control government and ensure government is working for us. You do that by keeping government as local as possible. You say "smart regulatory measures". What is "smart" to you may be destructive to others in other states. I support many government regulations, but above all I support controlling government.
    2
  17. In those countries they have many flaws in healthcare as well. It isn't that great and is not any better compared to the US system.
    2
  18. " yes thats the Ohsfeldt and Schneider analysts that U.S. life expectancy is being depressed by higher accident and homicide rates. But it has been critiqued because it doesn't take into account the fact that a better health care system would have saved some accident victims " They agree 100%. Ohsfeldt even said that. His point was that there are many factors that contribute to life expectancy. Crime rate, diet, exercise habits, environment, etc. Many life style factors besides healthcare. It becomes a game of statistics. Have you read the book "How to Lie with Statistics". What Ohsfeldt and Schneider did was show that anyone can take the stats and come up with a legit analysis and make any ranking they want. Many factors influence life expectancy and the difference between every country is minute. The US is around 3 years away from Canada. What contributes to those three years? Is it healthcare or lifestyle? And how much of each if both? That is why those rankings are arbitrary.
    2
  19. That 45,000 is a very deceptive numbers. Also, many people die on waiting lines. Healthcare is more complex than what you leftists make it out to be.
    1
  20. Ant Man, universal healthcare would mean free liposuction for fat people.
    1
  21. Eric Taylor, we have a K-12 education system that teaches healthy lifestyle choices. If they have not figured it out by then universal healthcare is not going to do anything.
    1
  22. Eric Taylor, first off, C Wilson is a troll. I ignore him. Next, nothing shows that other countries have better results. Not saying they are worse off, but reality is that they are not any better than the US. They do many things well, but so does the US. As a whole they are equal. People die in other nations due to the shortcomings.
    1
  23. C Wilson, I do not respond to immature comments where you call me a bitch.
    1
  24. Daniel Pierik, healthcare is not a right in your country. Learn the difference.
    1
  25. You Can't Escape The Blob, in other countries healthcare is not a right. Even at that we have to stick to the US. People have a right to a trial by a jury. If you are called for jury duty and refuse you go to jail. See the comparison? Jury duty is a service and if you refuse you go to jail. Having a jury is a right.
    1
  26. Kyle, that oath is not legal binding.
    1
  27. SodaBoy628, healthcare is not a right in Canada. Also, stick to the law in the US. You make it a "right" in the US you have to follow how rights are established in the US, like jury duty.
    1
  28. Dicita Lore, they are not required to do that work. They do it because they want to. If they don't they do not have to be a doctor. There is no law forcing them to work. I never said doctors in Canada are slaves. Read my previous comments of how 1. healthcare is not a right in Canada 2. in the US if we define it as a right government has to force people to work in it like we do with jury duty
    1
  29. G kaiser, government pays K-12 education but you do not have a right to it. Many places do not have math teachers for example.
    1
  30. John Edwards, that oath has no legal binding to it.
    1
  31. Having a trial by jury is a right. You have the right to have a trial in front of a jury of your peers. With that the government can force you to do jury duty and if you refuse you go to jail. If you make healthcare a right you have to force people to serve you in healthcare. It isn't 2 separate things. It is about defining healthcare as a right or not.
    1
  32. chaos0205, you can make an argument for abolishing jury. However, the argument for it is that it limits the government by having your peers, as opposed to government officials, determine you fate. It is a checks and balance system. To me I support the idea of a jury for that reason, the checks on government. Making healthcare a right does not create that checks but instead gives government unchecked power. You see the difference here? A jury is a way to limit government. Your peers, as opposed to government officials, judge you. It is an approach to limit government. Universal healthcare does not limit government, it empowers government. That is the idea behind that. This topic is not as simple as your try to make it.
    1
  33. WeedMadeMeRetarted, jurors are people who are forced to do jury duty because having a jury is a right. If you made healthcare a right you have to force people to provide healthcare. If we had no doctors the government will have to force people to become doctors. Why? Because they made healthcare a right. Even if there are doctors they will have to complete the job at the rate the government will pay them. Medicare does not cover a lot of services and many doctors do not accept it. That is why it is not considered a right. Education is not a right which is why many school districts do not have AP courses or other advanced topics.
    1
  34. And they have many shortcomings. I know you got your advice from Kyle, and being Cenk's son you were not raised well, but experts would agree with Shapiro on this one.
    1
  35. Here is a book by two http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  36. Defense is around 4% of GDP, healthcare is 1/6 of it. You failed math bud.
    1
  37. Debates were done, fact is that it is a losing topic for the left. 1. Saving money by lowering quality is not a solution. A studio apartment is cheaper than my one bedroom, is that a solution? 2. Polls are not reliable, have vague questions, and are flawed. 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. If the polls have it so many people want it why did so many people in a blue state vote against it? It is a very debatable issue. I can tear about anyone here on the healthcare debate on the pure fact that many people, like you, over simplify the issue. When you have to look at opinion polls that shows you have no argument.
    1
  38. 1. When you break down the stats nothing suggests that single payer has better quality. You say "based on your condition" when that is not true. You have longer wait times where your condition gets worse. Also, the severity of the condition is subjective in many ways. For example, in diabetes one person may have high blood sugar but due to genetic factors they can be fine where someone with slightly lower blood sugar, but still high overall, can be terrible shape. 2. Read my comment again, it was not a poll but a voting result. Universal healthcare was placed on a ballot in Colorado and close to 80% said no. When put up to a vote people in Colorado, a left leaning that voted for Bernie, said no. Your argument of pointing to other countries is very poor. They have any shortcomings in their healthcare systems. They have different healthcare systems all together and completely different cultures. The fact is there are many arguments against single payer which is why people who support is have to limit their arguments to simply pointing at countries while ignoring the numerous variables and shortcomings involved.
    1
  39. https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Creation_of_ColoradoCare_System,_Amendment_69_(2016)
    1
  40. To start, single payer does not guarantee anything. The government does not have a magic wand to create things. If the goods or services are not there then the government cannot provide it. The talking point that single payer covers everyone is 100% false. There are limited resources where countries who have it have to deny people in some way. Next, the best approach in the US is to push for a free market system. A way to do that is to remove the payroll tax and push to get rid of the employer base healthcare. Think about it, why do so many employers pay their employees with healthcare insurance? And why does insurance equal healthcare? On the first question employers pay that way because it is a tax free way to pay employees. It would be much easier to pay with a higher wage but if they did they would be paying higher taxes due to the payroll tax. So they pay with insurance. Because of that insurance has become healthcare. Car insurance does not cover for tire rotations or new headlights but instead for unplanned accidents. Healthcare insurance should cover only unplanned, expensive situations. Situations like routine checkups, non-life threatening x rays, pregnancies, etc. can be paid for out of pocket as they can be planned for and people can shop around. That forces companies to compete and lower prices like what happened in LASIK. There is a desire to have insurance for unplanned, expensive cases where you cannot shop around. But if people were able to buy their own plans they would force insurance companies to compete which will lower prices. And since it would only cover unplanned, expensive situations as opposed to all healthcare situations than prices will be lowered. That is my idea. Is it ideal? No. But no system is.
    1
  41. I see the desire for a government ran healthcare system for basic needs. I really have no problem if we had that at the state level. I just don't want the federal government controlling it considering how corrupt it is and how it will not be efficient. I support government funded healthcare at the state level just like states control K-12 education, roads, police, etc.
    1
  42. JoAnne, Milton Friedman is seen as a guru. We have not been doing his policies for 40 years. In fact, we have been leaning in the opposite direction.
    1
  43. Purple Nurple, the same Chomsky that praised Venezuela and that said corporations are oppressive and coercive? I am sorry, but Chomsky is not an economist. As for use paying twice as more but half of the results, that is not true. Healthcare is more complicated than that and as a whole we are on par with other nations.
    1
  44. Purple Nurple, you have not posted anything. You only bring up cost, that's it. Sure we can pay less for healthcare and receive lower quality of care as a result like other nations do. You say Medicare would be fully funded when it is losing money now. You did not fair well in this discussion bud.
    1
  45. Purple Nurple, no country covers everyone in healthcare. In other nations they may be "covered" on paper simply by law, but due to lack of resources they will not receive proper care. Also, it does bring up the issue I have in why insurance equals healthcare. But again, no nation covers everyone. You saying they do is 100% false.
    1
  46. Other nations have shortcomings as well. They are not doing it better than us.
    1
  47. Culture is huge. it influences diet and fitness habits, work ethics, moral hazard, etc. The US is a nation of obese people.
    1
  48. CutThroatJuggalo, no healthcare system covers everyone, period. Until you understand that very basic concept you are not knowledgeable enough to have this conversation.
    1
  49. CutThroatJuggalo, only on paper is that so. What happens on paper and what happens in reality are two completely different things. On paper everyone in the US has access to a K-12 education. However, we all know that many schools lack many courses or have the proper teachers to teach the topics. A student who graduated from South Philadelphia High School has, on paper, the same education as someone who graduated from Radnor High School in PA. But we know that is not true in reality. In other countries you have waiting times and limitations in care. Every system has limitations, that is the reality. No system covers everyone unless you lower the standard. If you do that than everyone is covered in the US as the ER cannot turn people away.
    1
  50. CutThroatJuggalo, unlike you I do not have to move the goalpost to prove a point. When you change the standards I cannot take your comments seriously.
    1
  51. Ever thought use being the only nation without a universal healthcare system makes us the richest country in the world?
    1
  52. Public schools and roads are locally ran and funded and can be funded with 0% federal income taxes.
    1
  53. Walter, you never gave an specifics to your arguments. You mention "case laws" but fail to mention any. If that is how you approached Shapiro it is not surprising that they ignored you. Saying "case laws" and "rules violations" without citing any is not an argument.
    1
  54. markponicki, you don't graduate from Harvard with honors and write as many books as he has without being smart. Again, you may disagree with him but he is intelligent. People who say he isn't are simply projecting. There are many people I disagree with but I feel are intelligent. I disagree with Bill Maher on a lot of issues but I feel he is a very intelligent individual.
    1
  55. Manny, I have heard the net neutrality argument from both sides and my conclusion is that I feel neither side knows what they are talking about. I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry so I am an intelligent person who understands a lot. However, I have yet to see one person explain net neutrality to me and why their position is correct. The same goes for Ben Shapiro. Also, net neutrality is one of many issues Shapiro has an opinion on. Just because you disagree with him on it, or he may be incorrect to some degree, does not mean he is not intelligent. He is. Reality is no one knows everything, including you.
    1
  56. Sha Dow, who is greedy? Me who will be willing to pay for my own healthcare? Or you who wants to take from others who have more than you?
    1
  57. Walter Morales, you seemed to be missing something big here. Shapiro is in the political entertainment business. You said "would put anybody reading them to sleep". That is the point. Shapiro is not going to read legal documents to that extent on his show or in speeches as people will not listen. And he will not respond to you in that way as it would take too much time. You point began with Shapiro saying that the high taxation of Bernie's plan would leave those with more income invading taxes. Now is it that simple? No. But as a whole history has shown that to happen. That is why despite a 90% tax rate in the past there were 155 Americans in 1967 who earned over $200,000 that paid $0 in federal income taxes. If you want to get into a detailed discussion in how it would work out the yes, there is a lot to it that would put people to sleep. But as a whole the rich will invade taxes some how as they are already doing it now with our high corporate taxes. As for taxing the middle class more when pushed in a corner by a guy from Denmark Bernie admitted that he would have to raise everyone's taxes. That is the reality. You claim that you have legal documents that counter Shapiro proving he is wrong when one, you have yet to post any so I am doubting you. Not saying you are wrong, just doubting you. But again, you are missing the point, Shapiro is not going to waste time arguing legal documents with some random person and he will not chase audience away with reading them. That is how politics work. Listen to Kyle, he goes on a simplified rant about universal healthcare while ignoring pages and even books that counter his argument. Do you feel Kyle is smart? Look at politicians. They say appeal to emotion talking points or simplified statements to rally an audience. That's politics. Shapiro has a Harvard law degree. I am sure he understands and has read those legal documents. I am sure people like Warren, Cruz, Obama, etc. have as well. Shapiro has debated politicians in Congress. He knows his stuff. You need to understand his approach and why he does it.
    1
  58. " As a legal researcher and a Federal Reserve insider I have caught Ben making informal and inaccurate arguments that I have seen in many if not all attorneys and lawyers who I've encountered in District, Federal, and Appellate Courts." Such as what? And why haven't another lawyer like Cenk called him out on it? Or why did Congress take him serious enough to have him in a debate? I understand law well. I work with lawyers who do side with Shapiro's arguments. Not saying the support him 100% but they do side with his arguments. Point out what he said, why it is wrong, and reference the laws you are talking about. Until you do then you are all talk.
    1
  59. Walter, you are making an excuse that I would not be able to understand law or will not be willing to read it. I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. I am intelligent enough to understand law. I enjoy reading court cases and find who judges talk to be interesting. A buddy of mine who is a lawyer and leans left admits that all of the SC justices are very intelligent. He disagrees with them but he admits they are intelligent. Look at SC justices when they are grilled by members of congress. Look at how they talk and then look at how they write on decisions. In politics you have to attract the public, that is what Shapiro does.
    1
  60. Manny Santiago, graduating from Harvard law makes him intelligent. You cannot deny that. Does it make him authority on other issues? No. I encourage everyone to question what they here. I disagree with Shapiro a lot, but I would admit that he is smart. "furthermore, him using his platform to spread bull is incredibly damaging, seeing as there are those who consider the man wise on a wide variety of topics " I can say the same for someone like Noam Chomsky, or to a much lesser degree, Kyle. Many people follow Chomsky's words even though he has been wrong. Many people here follow Kyle's words even though he is wrong.
    1
  61. " i also notice that ben shapiro makes frequent references about all those who expect a free lunch, that they should lift themselves up by the bootstraps. i agree with him that there can be a tendency for some to exploit the system and this needs to be corrected. however, you dont punish everyone for the sins of a few." Shapiro supports charities. I support charities and local governments helping people out. I do not support a federal government having a welfare system. But on Ben's point, there is a strong push by the left for a "free lunch" and entitlement and being lazy. Tax cuts for the rich is allowing them to keep their money, that is not "socialism". The working class received a tax cut as well.
    1
  62. "so all the network technicians and the guys who brought you the internet "doesn't know what they are talking about" because you don't fully understand what they are saying? " They know, but not to the degree where they can explain it to the common man. Also, I feel that there is a level of people being deceptive to push something they believe. If you support NN then you will say one thing, if you oppose it you will say something else. I would admit I have not taken the time to fully understand it, but at the same time those that make opinions on it have not explained it very well either. Is see you aren't. "pray tell, if you were to be diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and you didn't understand the process of experimental treatment that the oncologists wanted to give you, or you couldn't understand the medical terms they were using... would you go to lebron james for treatment because he talks your talk and he is a top level basketball player?" No, but it would be nice for people to explain something to where a lot of people can understand. This is a major problem in science where scientists cannot converse with the common man. I love discussing my research with others outside of the field in a way I can communicate to where they can understand. I do not use the jargon that I would use with my colleagues, but I do explain my work in a way for someone with no experience in science would understand. That is what I ask for.
    1
  63. Manny, the point is that you really do not understand something until you can teach it. To me those explaining net neutrality understand it to a degree, but not to the point where they can teach it. That is my criticism.
    1
  64. Manny, how about you try to explain net neutrality to me.
    1
  65. Walter, how does Shapiro choose to work for "crony corporate capitalist"? He wants limited government which is the exact opposite of cronyism. Also, the Daily Wire does not have any shares outstanding from what I can tell. Are they even a corporation? You may say he lies (and I will ask for evidence), but he does not work for a corporation. And again, I want evidence. What did Shapiro say that you feel is wrong. Why it is wrong, and what evidence do you have. I am not trying to be rude here. Point is that many try to smear Shapiro but never give reasons why.
    1
  66. "I have friends in congress and they don't understand how the Federal Reserve operates let alone how accounting works. " Who? And how? Also, we are talking about Shapiro here. "Bernie did in fact state a higher tax for a certain tax bracket but was nothing compared to the tax on speculation." Bernie does not know his own tax plan. It took a guy from Denmark to get him to admit that he would have to raise taxes on everyone. "I am not a random person, I am very well known in legal circles in Washington and with Congress, but will not go into discussing who I know by name." Uh, I question that.
    1
  67. The Federal Reserve is quasi government. As for saying that congress "works" for the Federal Reserve, in what ways? Please tell me. This would be great as I just took an MBA course where we discussed about the Fed. Again, I am asking for evidence. What did Shapiro say, why is it wrong, and with what evidence?
    1
  68. Walter, when? With what context? You are still leaving out a lot of information. What did Shapiro say to lead you to approach him like this? And what did you say? Also, the IRS and the Fed are not connected in that way. I am confused on why you bringing them up.
    1
  69. sqlb3rn segfavlt, welcome to politics. Politicians act like this in front of the public. Why? Because they are simple minded when it comes to politics and have other things to worry about in life. That is why Trump won saying the simple things he does. Or why Bernie gains support saying "fair share" or "living wage".
    1
  70. Uh, the Federal Reserve does have some government oversight. I do not have me textbook on my right now so I cannot give the direct quote, but one board member was asked a question on that point and said they would raise interest rates as they please to hinder inflation. Then that same person asked what if they raised interest rates too high and the economy worsen. That board member then say they will no longer be independent from government. When I get home I can find the direct quote. But the Fed does have some government oversight. That is a debatable topic. For the most part it is free from government. But if they mess up they won't be. There are also arguments in that restrictions should be placed on the Fed. When they did QE and the bailouts the Fed seemed to have too much freedom creating the argument that the Fed should be restricted in some ways. As for accounting you are getting into the meat and details of the topic. Shapiro is not going to cover that as the overall tax code is large and doing so will bore his audience and would take time. Also, I feel you are cherry picking one portion of the overall tax law. This is the old "forest for the trees" situation now.You picked one part of the tax code as tried to do a "gotcha" on Shapiro when it is much larger than that.
    1
  71. Walter, I know there is no law. But Congress has a say in the board members and the chair. That is where the oversight comes in. The Fed was pressured by congress to keep interest rates low when Greenspan was in charge. I will have to look again but the viewpoint is that the Fed is independent of government, not from government. It might have been Bernanke that said that. Again, I have to look at my books that are at home. I am at my work computer. On Shapiro, you are cherry picking at that point. When did Shapiro talk about class 5 gifts? If he talked about that specific point and was either wrong or hypocritical than sure, you got him. If not, if he was talking about taxes in general than you don't. You are picking one of many areas of the overall tax code trying to do a "gotcha" when in reality you don't. Shapiro is against welfare for Wall Street and corporations. I have not seen anything to suggest he is for it. I really do not get your point here. What has Shapiro said that suggests he is for corporate welfare? I am still waiting for you to show me that.
    1
  72. Walter, in this entire discussion you have yet to point out something specific Shapiro said. It seems to me that since he leans right you are making the strawman that he must support corporate welfare which is really a made up situation by those on the left who do not understand the true position of the right. When has Shapiro show support for corporate welfare?
    1
  73. " already did. When he insists on limited government he is demonstrating his support for corporate hegemony." Two things. One, that is a strawman. Next, limited government means no corporate welfare. This is a major problem of the left. When someone supports limited government you equate it to corporations having power. That is not true. To start, again, if the government is limited in powers it will not be able to give welfare to corporations. Next, corporations have no power at all besides offering you a job and/or a good or service. Government has power. You limit government you remove corporate welfare and you prevent corporations from taking advantage of government. At this point you are strawmanning Shapiro.
    1
  74. While I cannot speak completely for Shapiro I can for myself with limited government. One example is the new tax law. When it was being pushed at one point they wanted to tax graduate students' tuition waiver. As a grad student I supported that. People asked why and I said because I support a limited federal government which means I support a simplified federal tax code. My tax code would be a consumption tax and a flat income tax. That tuition waiver is income but isn't taxed because it is a loophole. People were not on my side to where my argument is that if you support making tuition waivers, which is a form of payment, tax free, then you support loopholes that lower the tax rates for corporations. If you support one loophole existing then you support the government having power to create more. With limited government those powers of creating loopholes will not exist. That means no class 5 gifts.
    1
  75. Walter, not to be rude but you are like most leftists here that fail to understand the true position of the right. Supporting limited government means their powers are limited and cannot engage in corporate welfare. So again, I ask of you, what has Shapiro said show that he supports corporate welfare? So far all you have shown is that he does not support corporate welfare.
    1
  76. Walter, government can create limitations on the market, and also it doesn't. That is another topic all together. But a limited government means not corporate welfare, period. At that point you are literally making things up to smear Shapiro. Unless you find a direct quote from him showing he supports corporate welfare I cannot take you seriously. If you are going to criticize your opponent you have to treat them fairly. Uh, the FOMC does not control taxes. On that quote where does he show support for corporate welfare. Obama pushed for more regulation controlled by government, not the Fed. Welfare programs like Medicare have increases some under Obama. And yes, it is careless to talk about easy money programs and not mention the Fed. But again, the chair is chosen by the president and confirmed by Congress. They can place some pressure on them to enact some policy. To say they don't would be foolish. That is why I say the Fed is quasi government. " For example, the constitution only permits for 10% interest rates" What Constitution? The US Constitution? I do not see that anywhere. Also, it can range from 10% to I believe 12%. It just hasn't change in years. I do not know the exact number but there is a small range, it just remains at 10%. But again, what constitution?
    1
  77. But again, when has been said he supports corporate welfare? I am still waiting. So far in this entire discussion you made a claim about Shapiro but have not given a quote to support it. You claimed to have emailed him case studies but have not given me any. And you are ignoring the fact that the Fed is not completely free from government, that government officials can influence their actions.
    1
  78. Also, Obama signed the stimulus package in 2009.
    1
  79. Walter, the FOMC also doesn't control prices. It can influence them with interest rates and can influence the price of securities by influencing how much the Fed should buy or sell. But that is about it.
    1
  80. Walter, you said you had cases and laws that you gave Shapiro. I asked for you to give them to me, even just a link that I can read. You have not done that. You have also shown to show a lack of understanding of the Fed such as saying they control taxes and prices. Also, the Fed is not completely independent government. From the book "The Financial System, Financial Regulation and Central Bank Policy" by Thomas Cargill, in chapter 11 section 11.6 it says the story that goes like this "A new research staff member to the Board of Governors asked one of the board members if the Federal Reserve was independent. The board member responded: "Yes of course, the Federal Reserve is independent." The new staff member then asked. "Does that mean the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates to prevent inflation even if it causes unemployment rate to increase, say, from 5 to 5.5 percent?" The response "Yes, of course, that's what independence means. We can pursue a policy that might conflict with the government." The new staff member persisted and asked: "What about if unemployment rate increases from 5 to 6 or 6.5 percent?" The board member took more time to respond: "Probably not, because then we would lose our independence." It was Governor McChesney Martine that said the Fed has "independence within government rather than independence from government". "You have not provided laws that would prove the validity that the Federal Reserve is quasi-government" You haven't provided any laws either considering how you claimed to have some. You have not provided any laws showing that the central bank is independent from government. However, the president promotes the chair of the Fed and congress confirms it. If the Fed were to change interest rates causing massive inflation or massive unemployment, or if they were to abuse their "lender of last resort" tool, government will step in and make changes. The Fed is its own entity, but government can and does influence its actions. I can see why no one wants to debate you. You came across as someone who knows what they are talking about claiming you can cite case studies and law, but when I pushed you to do that you haven't.
    1
  81. Walter, the Fed only controls, or more correctly, influences prices of securities and loans by buying and selling them. If that is what you mean you are correct. However, it does not control the price of gas, or the milk I just bought, or my rent, etc. You say my research and knowledge only scratches the surface and I agree. However, I understand that government does influence how the Fed acts, and the Fed does not create tax laws. "The money supply is decreased through increasing interest rates and raising reserve requirements, which cause unemployment and enduring recessions to depressions. " Eh, not really. Raising interest rates in the past under Volcker led to lower unemployment in the long run because in the past low interest meant higher inflation and was believed to have lowered unemployment. The Fed has not raised reserve requirements in years. But I agree that raising it, and raising interest rates does lower the money supply which lowers inflation. But again, I am still waiting for these laws and case studies you claim to have.
    1
  82. "He explains the double book keeping entries done by the banks to fool you into believing that government controls interest rates and taxes. " Ok, and? "He was won over 35 cases all across the U. S. And his friend Denise and I have seen the results." I am still waiting for you to post these case studies and laws. The onus is on you. But again, you felt that the Fed control tax rates, and you feel the Fed is independent from government.
    1
  83. Walter, you claimed to have given laws and case studies to Shapiro through emails. I am asking you to do the same thing to me. At this point you are making excuses. At the same time you feel that the Fed controls tax rates and is completely independent from the government, both of which are not true.
    1
  84. Walter, you claimed that Shapiro did not know what he was talking about but you gave him laws and tax codes in emails (you claimed that). But now you are refusing to do it for me? At this point I cannot believe you.
    1
  85. The onus is on you. You claimed at the very beginning to have given Shapiro examples of case studies and references to laws. I asked the same from you and you haven't. As for the Fed and quasi government, what laws makes the Fed completely independent from government? None exists. As I said, the federal government can just pick a new chair and a new group to be the board of governors. "I also did not say that the Federal Reserve creates income tax policy" From an earlier comment from you "The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee controls prices, taxation, and interest rates." That is from you.
    1
  86. " I'm not asking you to believe me I'm asking you to do your own research." Where? So far you have only pointed me to one book. I referenced a book myself. Your response is similar to Cenk saying "Google it". Where should I look? Should I email and ask Shapiro? Telling me to do "research" is a cop out from you when you claimed to know the material and have resources to give. All I am asking from you are the same case studies and law references that you gave Shapiro and I can go from there. You are not even providing that. You are instead telling me to do my own research and expect me to find the right answer based on the plethora of information, both fact and opinion, out there. "Why would I put the people who I've helped in court at risk for exposing the Federal Reserve when there is plenty of case laws with regards to the Howey case and Horizontal and Vertical Commonality Tests." Because these cases are open for the public. You are not putting anyone at risk. " I understand that I have not provided the amount of cases you seek, but when you give barber shop arguments it gives me reason to believe that there is no interest in learning. " I am interested in learning. The fact is this, you made a claim so I asked you to back it up. You have not. That is the problem. That is why I cannot believe what you are saying. I have very high doubt you ever contacted Shapiro with law references and case studies. "You make the statement that the Federal Reserve is only exclusive to securities but have not read article 3 and article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code to see how the Federal Reserve affects farm products, real estate, student loans, credit,.. etc" Uh, Article 8 deals with securities which I mentioned is one of the two purposes of the Fed. The Fed controls the money supply through buying and selling securities and changing interest rates, and the Fed is the lender of last resort. What you are doing, once again, is getting into the meat of the issue where I mentioned before is the whole "forest for the trees" issue. You are trying to sound smart by referencing minor details. "Why should I continue if there is no intention of giving it some research?" Because I want to learn which is why I approached you. You have said you have challenged Shapiro so I was curious in how. You have not given me any case studies and now have given me a law that I am reading up on now. That is what I asked from the very beginning and you have failed to deliver.
    1
  87. Walter, please stop lying. You have not worked any cases. All I asked from you are some case studies and laws. You only provided one law after I kept pushing you to the max. You made a strawman about Shapiro where you equated limited government to corporate welfare where you cannot have corporate welfare with limited government. You claimed he worked for corporate America when Daily Wire is not a corporate. You said the Fed controlled taxes and is completely free from government which neither one of those is true. You have been wrong on many accounts. You claimed to have worked for the Fed but have been wrong in how it operates. Really, just stop. You are digging yourself in a deeper hole.
    1
  88. Walter, if you do not want to release case studies to keep your identity secret along with your colleagues I can understand that. I can understand why you would share that information with Shapiro but not others. But you can at least give me a list of laws. You haven't. I pushed you and you gave one after many comments. Also, you should admit when you are wrong. Such as the Fed and taxes or how the Fed is not independent from government. You want Shapiro to admit when he is wrong but can't do it yourself. You should hold yourself to the same standards.
    1
  89. Walter, again, I asked for laws. You provided one. You brought up the Constitution which makes no mention of the Fed. You cannot admit when you were wrong on the Fed being free from government and the Fed controlling taxes. At this point you are making excuses. I called you out and you are making excuses. "You talk about the constitution as if it had no place in commercial transactions without mention of how the Extensions of Consumer Credit Act violates the Judicial Due process and Equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution done by deceptive and unfair trade practices and insider trading in violation of 17 Code Federal Regulation, section 240.10B5." There is surely a court case on that. Care to provide it? Also, I never said "as if it had no place in commercial transactions". Why are you bringing that up now? You are bringing up irrelevant points. But again, there is surely a court case you read about. Care to link it? I would love to read the SC justices' opinions on it. "You constantly disagree with this role the Federal Reserve has and then state you have studied the Federal Reserve in depth, very unlikely." You are the one who said the Fed controls taxes and is free from government. If you studied the Fed in depth you would know that government does influence it to a degree. That scholars, one that I cited, understand that and have discussed that. I also never claimed to have studied the Fed in depth, I said I took a course where we talked about it. I took one course where the Fed was discussed. I never studied it beyond that. You are making that claim about me now. Just like you did with Shapiro you are creating a strawman on me. You should follow that quote you gave me. You seem delusional based on what you say. All I am asking for are references to laws which typically require court decisions.
    1
  90. Walter, I asked for laws, you gave one. You strawmanned Shapiro on his stance on corporate welfare saying he worked for corporate America when he doesn't. You equated limited government to corporate welfare which is 100% not true. You now strawmanned me on the Fed when I never claimed to have studied it in depth. You were wrong on the Fed on taxes and independence from government. And now you cited the Equal protection cause for some reason to try to sound smart when that point is irrelevant in what we are talking about. When I call you a liar it is because you are. You cannot admit when you are wrong and you fail to provide any sources to support the idea that you have studied law. Citing laws and court cases does not expose anyone. However, you keep making excuses. You refuse to explain anything because you do not know anything. As a graduate student who studies economics on the side (I study physical chemistry for my PhD) I want to learn. I take MBA courses to open my mind. When I first took that course where we discussed the Fed I was in the "end the Fed" crowd but left understanding the value of the Fed. I can listen and change my mind. Reality is you do not know anything and rather make excuses to pretend.
    1
  91. AnotherKS, there is an income requirement as the government would have to tax income to fund these programs.
    1
  92. The argument I get is that is only one state where in reality the nation wants it. It is dumb as CO is a left leaning state that supported Bernie, but that is what they will say.
    1
  93. Bernie is not going to win.
    1
  94. Freely Liberal, Kyle is very easy to debate. He has been repeating the same talking points over and over again that are easily debunked. I could destroy him in a debate if I had a chance.
    1
  95. Freely Liberal, read this book on healthcare https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  96. JR 14, when has government funded programs drove down prices?
    1
  97. bryan s, you are talking about the inelastic demand of healthcare at that point where insurance is designed to counter that. Also, not all of healthcare in inelastic. Why is an x-ray so expensive? You take an picture and look at it, that is all you do. A lot of times it is not life threatening where you can shop around. However you can't. The reason why healthcare is so expensive is because the government highly regulates it. It is not a free market.
    1
  98. JR 14, universal systems cost less because their quality is lower.
    1
  99. "There doesnt exist ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of a free market healthcare that has EVER been successful. Not ONE. " The US had a strong healthcare system when it was a free market decades ago. Over time government regulations have taken control. Also, with our argument of something doesn't exist so it can't exist is poor. There is no cure for breast cancer. So I guess we should not research and find it? "The only successful heakrhxares in the world are single payer or SEVERELY REGUALTED PRIVATE CARE. " Not true. " U cant name ONE successful free market care" Again, I cannot name a cure for breast cancer, so I guess it will cease to exist.
    1
  100. "why don't you ask yourself why universal systems cost roughly half what we pay" My one bedroom apartment is around half that of a three bedroom apartment. I guess where I live is much better overall by your standard.
    1
  101. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeqj5JGs2zs
    1
  102. Ben H, it was more of a free market decades ago.
    1
  103. Ben H, the US healthcare system excels in many ways and many do agree the quality is tops. The problem is cost. Also, no country covers everyone. It is impossible to do so. When you say the US covers less people, what do you mean? That is very vague when you consider what healthcare actually is and what it entails.
    1
  104. G Kaiser, not true. Healthcare became very expensive due to government regulations.
    1
  105. https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
    1
  106. G Kaiser, advertisement cost is a drop in the bucket, so are CEO salaries. You say "wages for employees". So in a government system there will not be any employees? Or there will but they will be working for less? So you support lower wages? As for facility, so you do not support strong facilities? There is a desire to have regulations at the local level, we have too many at the federal level. The quality does worsen. You have to pay somehow. No such thing as a free lunch. You are asking for employees to earn less and less money be placed into facilities. How won't the quality go down? And no, other countries do not have the same technology. The lack behind us in many ways.
    1
  107. CEO salaries and advertisement are low compared to the overall operating cost of healthcare. So you support less jobs? And why would they hire less when demand increases? Think about the post office, how great is that? And no, other modern nations lack in technology.
    1
  108. "And the claim that other developed nations have lower quality care than the US (because of their national plans) has been debunked so many times." It has not been debunked. Many understand that we have more technology and the US is better at advanced care than other countries. Universal healthcare is great for very very basic things like pregnancies our routine check ups. When it comes to surgery or cancer care it sucks. Considering how you are telling me to "just give it up" shows that you have no argument.
    1
  109. "Healthcare is so expensive because maximum profit has to be made along every step of the way usually" In a competitive system that would not take place. We do not have a free market system, that is the problem. I agree they are pushing for high profits. The advantage of profits is progress. Healthcare is much better due to profits which is why our quality is so high. However, due to lack of a free market they rank in more profits than needed. " And as i know you've heard a million times but refuse to accept the reality, we have every other industrial nation as an example of how to cut cost and cover everyone. " That is a poor argument. That is why I refuse to accept it. You take the complex issue of healthcare and limit it down to 1. They are countries 2. They have healthcare You ignore quality, tax rates, culture, health habit, exercise habits, moral hazard, etc. You are ignore a ton of factors there. Denmark for years had mandatory military. Don't you think that influences how people act there? Don't you think how they act influences healthcare? In the US have an obesity problem where a guy made the movie "Super Size Me" to talk it. 40% of the American food dollar in the US is spent eating out where in the UK it is around 20%. Eating out is less healthy. You are ignoring issues like that. Go ahead and look at other countries if you want. It is not an argument and why universal healthcare is not getting support.
    1
  110. G Kaiser, I am all for regulations, just want kind varies from state to state. I want to leave it up to the states. I am not ignoring those countries. They have different systems. Does Denmark, Norway, Canada, etc. all have the same healthcare system? Also consider they are smaller than a lot of our states. Also, the US, as a whole, has a successful system as well.
    1
  111. G Kaiser, healthcare is a trillion dollar industry. CEO salaries and advertisements are a drop in a bucket overall. Someone has to profit in the end. Profit motive leads to progress. Where is the incentive to do well if you will not profit? The DEA is enforcing a law. They do not create laws.
    1
  112. Jacquelyn, and healthcare in Canada has many shortcomings, mainly in advanced care it is terrible compared to the US. You get what you pay for. As a colleague of mine from Canada told me when he needed knee surgery, he would not have received it in Canada.
    1
  113. " does Denmark canada all have the same system? Yes. Genereally so. Not the exact 100% same system but overall they have single payer." Not true. Canada breaks their system up in Providences. You should understand how each system works if you want to copy it. "Wrong. The US pays MORE for the SAME medicine and treatments than other countries" Not true. We receive better treatment. "45k that die each year from lack of care due mostly from being unable to afford ot or lack of coverage. " Not true. As a Harvard professor said, bad health is associated with poverty thus you cannot determine if they die due to lack of care or due to being in bad health to begin with. Also, people die in other nations as well. "Size of the country has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO PAY FOR A SERVICE." It does. How many countries with 100+ million people have single payer and a strong economy? "U made arguments against regualtions in general " Nope, just said regulations were increasing the price. Not saying all regulations are bad.
    1
  114. G Kaiser, you have vague talking points. What are "smart regulations" and why?
    1
  115. There are strong arguments against those regulations. On pre-existing conditions if you refuse to get healthcare until you are sick that is your fault. On subsidizing that typically raises cost. So they are far from "smart" when there are strong arguments against them.
    1
  116. G Kaiser, saying the "work" is a very low bar to set because one can argue that they don't work. Again, subsidizes have been known to raise prices. On pre-existing conditions that can be solved through the free market. One, people can buy insurance at a younger age due to it being more affordable due to competition and also insurance will not be tied to employment. Next, insurance will be insurance. A major problem is that healthcare insurance is healthcare when it should not be. The pre-existing conditions argument is tackled through the free market. You say "smart" but I just gave legit arguments against them. You say they "work" but asking insurance companies to become charities means higher prices.
    1
  117. G Kaiser, they don't receive more, that is the fact. If you cannot accept those facts we cannot continue to have a conversation here.
    1
  118. Healthcare went up at a lower rate because of the recession.
    1
  119. G Kaiser, how is that source credible?
    1
  120. I can look up sources, here is one http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  121. qzamboni, if that is the only argument you have than I will take that as a victory on my part. Time will show that I am right.
    1
  122. G Kaiser, I agree, we pay more. But there is a lot more to it than that. I pay more in rent compared to someone living in a studio apartment.
    1
  123. Janice from Accounting, a couple of huge points you are missing here. One, those European countries have much smaller populations than the US. It is much easier to micromanage those programs with a smaller population. People point to European countries where I ask name me one country with 100+ million people, universal healthcare and a strong economy? You can say Japan but they are in massive debt and are mainly successful due to the culture of people who literally work themselves to death. That brings up point two. The culture in the US is just different. In California universal healthcare was turned down because of the high price tag and high taxes. In Colorado, a blue state, 80% said no to it. Our culture is different with a combination of one set of people not wanting to pay those high taxes including people in the middle and lower class, and another set being free loaders. In the book "Debunking Utopia" the author showed how in European countries they have healthier lifestyles, that their culture allows for those programs to exist and be successful. You can't just look at those countries and limit the argument down to 1. They are countries 2. They have a certain program Doing so is ignoring thousands of variables. This is why this leftist movement is not going anywhere, our culture does not want their policies.
    1
  124. " there is no empirical evidence pointing towards social system scaling up badly. On the contrary, they should even work better the more people take part in it." I beg to differ. Again, what country has 100+ million people, single payer healthcare and a strong economy? Scaling up ignores an important concept in economics, that is the concept of individualization. Now bear with me as I have only taken a few economic courses and done so only through an MBA program, but people want things to be catered to them. In healthcare you have the issue of people wanting their own doctors who understand their issues and can serve them. When you talk about "scaling up" you are creating a one size fits all policy. The large the population the more that policy has to cover. You ignore micromanagement and ignore the concept of individualization. For me my doctors I see have no problem giving me extra time that I pay for, that is an example. But overall, for your idea of scaling up you have to assume that everyone is the same. That everyone approaches issues the same, or have the same thought process financially, or similar lifestyles, diets, exercise habits, practices, etc. That isn't the case though. Even in the US some states have citizens who are healthier. Some states have citizens who rather pay lower taxes. " These system work the same in a country of 5 million people, like Norway, and a country of 82 million people, like Germany. So why wouldn't it work in the US? I hear that argument all the time, but I've never seen it backed up with either a reasonable causal theory for it not working or empirical evidence pointing towards it not working in the US. " I just gave you a theory and evidence. Again, how many nations have 100+ million people, a universal healthcare system, and a strong economy/healthcare system. Next, I gave you the theory behind it of different cultures. People in CA are different than the people in KS. To expect a healthcare system that can work in CA to work in KS is false thinking. Look at those nations of Norway and Germany. Do they have the exact same systems? No. Sure, you can say as a whole they have a universal healthcare system. But they differ in many ways. Does Norway and Germany have the same tax codes, same economic systems, same healthcare systems? No. That is even more evidence there. " Universal healthcare is much cheaper than the current system the US has. Your average per capita healthcare expenses would be cut in half if the system is implemented properly." What is the quality? A studio apartment where I have to share a kitchen with three other people is cheaper than my one bedroom apartment where I have my own kitchen. Cheaper is not always better. You can't say something is "cheaper" as if it is an argument that the system is better. "Americans don't even know what a social democratic system would look like and in what way they would benefit. So how are they supposed to form an educated opinion on the matter?" The idea of "social democratic system" varies. Look at those European nations, do they all have the same system? Denmark had mandatory military. Norway has no min. wage and strong unions due to a free market in worker and employer relationship, same with Denmark. Norway and Canada are strong oil producers. You label those nations as "social democratic" but never look at the details. What system do you want to cover and why? And again, how do you account for the different cultures in every state. Look at CA, NV, and Utah. CA is left leaning and very blue. Next state over is NV, a libertarian like state that made marijuana legal before CA. 24 hour bars and strip clubs. Next state over is Utah, a religious state with strict drinking laws. All three states within a day driving distance from each other and all have different cultures. That plays a role in what economic systems they have. "Social democracy maximizes the potential in population by giving everybody access to highest quality education, healthcare and a tight social net that eliminates risks for them." I can argue against that. Everyone has access to a K-12 education system. Many lack certain courses, like AP courses, due to lack of resources. We have public libraries for people to do all the studying they want. The resources are there, the will isn't. You say "highest quality of education" when we have that. Our culture value different things. One thing that is unique in our universities compared to other nations is the NCAA. No other country has that attached to their universities. We do. In our education system we value extra curricular activities like sports. What is your standard for "highest quality of education"? Also, you have to consider that just like AP courses, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, etc. in colleges meaning that we cannot provide it to all. No nation can. Putting a warm body in front of people is not providing them with it. On that, in Germany they track their students to where they determine if you are college material or not. If the government feels you are not college material they do not allow you to go. Is that the model you want? "But these are all results of the system. Healthy lifestyles correlate heavily with the level of education. 60% of the US work force have no further education than a high school degree. If that were the case in Europe there'd be many of the same problems. " That 60% is normal. 44% of adults 25-64 have a college degree. In Norway it is 42%, 36% in Denmark, 27% in Germany who track their students. " People have no idea how social democracy actually works in Europe and how it would fix the majority of the problems the US is facing and would benefit the vast majority of the American people." Not to be rude but I feel you don't either considering the stat you gave me on college education. Or how you simply label something "social democracy" while ignoring numerous factors such as oil production, the free market in wage negotiation, or tracking students to restrict who goes to college.
    1
  125. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment
    1
  126. the one winged angel, what? Equinor is one major oil producer in Norway. What is your point?
    1
  127. Norway, like Denmark, has no min. wage and lower corporate taxes. They allow the free market to reign in business and in wage negotiation. The citizens just agreed to pay higher taxes for social welfare programs. That is not a "mixed economy" as many like to call it. Businesses are free to reign and as a result people have jobs and money. Those people, in small countries, decided to pay higher taxes which is their culture. It isn't the rich or the "1 PERCENT" or "BIG CORPORATIONS" (in a Bernie Sanders voice) paying high taxes but citizens. They are capitalist countries for the most part.
    1
  128. As for oil, yes, it is mainly state owned. However they are willing to drill for it. We aren't in the US.
    1
  129. My BA was in physics. I am taking MBA courses during my physical chemistry studies as I have time. Also, you criticize me on my knowledge on economics but you do not understand the free market.
    1
  130. "K-12 on its own isn't enough to actually get a decent well paying job anymore. " Eh, not really. I know plenty who do well outside of computer science. Besides that college is completely different that public schools. Why are degrees valued so high? Because you prove to employers you are willing to invest time and money to accomplish a long term goal. If you make college "free" you remove that part of it making college degrees worthless. The value in college is beyond taking courses. Most courses, outside of the STEM fields, can be taught alone with no classes. These MBA courses are very easy for me as I have been challenged with my physics and chemistry courses. In college a major part of what you do is 1. Developing connections 2. Learning how to manage a schedule 3. Learning how to manage a budget 4. Exposing yourself to new people and ideas 5. Learning how to invest one's time and money to accomplish a long term goal Even in those advanced science courses you really do not learn anything new. In a discussion with colleagues on what is the hardest physics class one takes and a couple said the introductory physics courses as it is the first time you see that material. It is the first time you see E&M, Quantum, classical, optics, etc. The advanced courses just adds more complex problems and some more details. But as a whole you really do not learn anything extremely new.
    1
  131. "As for the quality in Norway, (for example) Pretty dang good. Especially when compared to here [which isn't even in the top 35 according to WHO]. " The WHO ranking, like all rankings,m is arbitrary and was criticized so much that they have not developed another on in nearly 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta, a country I only heard of from an MST3K episode. The stats in healthcare are so close it is hard to tell which country is better so as a whole no country is better than the US. At the same time the US has shortcomings as well were developed countries are not inferior to it either. "You talk about individualization, individualization can be just as bad as it can be good. Take for instance those with preexisting conditions. Are we as human beings not supposed to help each other out?" If the person you want to help out has no desire to be responsible why should you? Your comment there supports my idea of smaller population and localized government. I am more wiling to help my friends, neighbor and members of my community as I can see if they are working hard and pulling their own weight. I can also see if government is spending money the best. Milton Friedman said there is a desire to have money spent by government as long as the people get their money's worth. You do that by keeping it as local as possible because you at a local community can see if government is working for you. I will post the video of that comment in another comment of mine. But there is desire to help people in need, and we should. But I want to see if the people I am helping deserve it and also want to see if government is spending money to help people or not. You do that with local government programs.
    1
  132. " It's based on the basics of insurance: have a lot of healthy people to balance out the "sick" people." This is 100% false. You concept on insurance is 100% false. Insurance is there in case you need it. Insurance is there to counter the inelastic demand of healthcare. There are times demand is inelastic. Take care insurance for instance. Car insurance does not cover my tire rotations or oil changes, but it covers a car accident where I need my car to be fixed quickly and do not have time to shop around, nor have the money. In a car accident demand in inelastic. Car insurance can kick off bad drivers who are a drain to the system. Health insurance should be insurance. However, due to government regulations that made healthcare a form of payment through employers, insurance has become healthcare. Insurance now covers all of healthcare even cases where one can shop around like routine check ups, pregnancies, x-rays for non-life threatening situations, etc. Situations where demand is not inelastic. With our current system insurance companies have too much power. This idea that "healthy" people can cover "sick" people is flawed in that many are unhealthy due to personal life choices. As with car insurance, they kick off bad drivers. But you want to cover obese people and smokers. That is not how it works. In car insurance safe drivers get discounts. But you want healthy people to pay more. Again, your concept on insurance is 100% wrong at that point.
    1
  133. Another problem with your thought process is something called "moral hazard". This was brought up with the FDIC and banks. A major problem of the FDIC is the idea that there is little incentive for banks to take safe and responsible actions in banking such as loans. That if they fail they would be bailed out by the FDIC or another institution (sound familiar). This happened in the S&L crisis in the 80s. Banks were insured thus where is the incentive to actually responsible banking? Same thing can be done with universal healthcare and/or insurance. Where is the incentive to be healthy if healthy people will bail out the unhealthy ones? Why work hard in being healthy when you will be bailed out in the end?
    1
  134. Side note: I did not get gipped. In fact, I learned a lot.
    1
  135. The problem with the phrase "living wage" is that it is 100% subjective. What a "living wage" is to you is completely different for me. The term "living wage" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion talking point made by politicians. It doesn't mean anything. Next, the flaws in your reasoning are these. 1. If the company does not have the money to begin with than it will not be able to afford higher wages. 2. A business may have low wage workers but offer goods/services that middle class workers can afford. For example, take a company like Best Buy where their employees may earn around $10/hr. Poor individuals are not going to shop there. 3. There is no guarantee for that company that people will shop that that business more. 4. if min. wage workers are going to spend their money that quickly than they are poor for a reason. They have bad money management skills. Crony capitalism comes from to little capitalism and too much federal government.
    1
  136. "Thats not an argument. There doesn't need to be another country as big as the US with a universal healthcare system to prove that its possible." It is an argument as you asked for evidence. I gave you evidence as there are not countries the size of the US that have a strong economy and universal healthcare. It is shown to "work" in smaller nations which is one point I used to push for state rights and state ran healthcare, but not in larger nations. But from another viewpoint, I want evidence showing single payer healthcare "works" in larger nations of 100+ people. "This is another dumb, constructed argument. Its hard to explain why it is so stupid if you don't understand how universal healthcare systems tend to work. But bottom line: Rational choice." Translation: I disagree with your comment but cannot justify why so I will just call it dumb. "Its in everyones best interest to support a universal healthcare system because it produces the best and cheapest results on average." Numerous arguments against that. Universal healthcare systems have numerous shortcomings. Read the book "The Business of Health" by prof. Robert Oshfeldt and Prof. John Schneider. They break down the numbers showing that one can argue that universal healthcare systems do not produce better results. Also, you say "everyones best interest" is very ignorant in my opinion. You have no idea what is in my best interest. Universal healthcare may be in your best interest, but not mine or others. This is a major reason why the founding fathers created state rights. What is in the best interest in one state is not in the best interest for others. The reasons are both objective and subjective. There are many objective arguments against universal healthcare systems and subjectively people may not want it. Who you are to decide? You claim the choice is "rational". That is subjective in many ways. I find it irrational for people to spend their money on numerous things, but they do. "And people in Berlin are different from people in Bavaria." It is a 4 hour drive from those two areas. It is a four hour flight from CA to KS. "This stuff was built over the course of a century, its quite intricate. And thats my basic point here, too." To quote John Maynard Keynes "In the long run we are all dead". If it takes a century to develop something you are going to have a hard time getting people to accept it. Many care about now, not the long run. Also, the economy of Germany 100 years ago is different compared to the US economy now. We are much more developed. A small example is that during that time Germany was on the gold standard. They aren't anymore. "Average Quality in OECD countries is actually better than average quality in the US. " Many factors beyond healthcare contribute to those stats and I will post you that book I mentioned above later. One example is that with life expectancy if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. the US has a higher infant mortality rate due to a high level of pre-term birth. Will universal healthcare prevent that? The stats you provided are raw. They are not influenced by healthcare alone but by other factors as well. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" where the author mentions how in other nations they live healthier lifestyles which contributes to those better numbers. You don't need healthcare to exercise and eat healthy. "Because "social democracy" is a political system and the details you mentioned were completely unrelated economic details." They are related. What tax rates do you want to use? How much, in terms of percent GDP, do you want to spend on these programs? You need details. "I don't even get what kind of point you were trying to make here." That there is way more to the economy than what you are presenting. You say "they are nations, they have social democracies....." Ok, so I then ask "and what else, what are their tax rate? How much do they spend? How are these programs actually ran? Do I go to a health clinic or do I make an appointment?" And so on. I need details. All of those nations have different systems. "Sports in Europe is, pretty much in every country, organized completely differently than in the US. We have a club culture. If you want to play a sport you join a club. These clubs aren't connected to any other institutions. Its just a different approach than in the US. But I don' t get what you argument is supposed to be? Just because countries have their differences doesn't mean that you can't have similar policy in these countries." The economics and culture of a university is tied to sports. Many people choose colleges because of it. You have scholarships and scholarship limits for different school sizes. I will post another comment on this topic here as I know a lot about his due to my involvement in the NCAA and this is a great example of the main point you are missing here. "I live in Germany. Yes this is a model I want. Its much better than the American system, where the wallet of your parents determines what kind of education you can get. In Germany schools filter people in a way that everyone gets the education that suits them best." Well, a colleague of mine is from Germany. He was tracked for a trade school. He left and went to college in the US and is now a doctoral student. He was given an opportunity in the US. You may like what you have in Germany which is fine, but in the US we have a different culture. We allow for opportunity. One can go to a Junior College and prepare for a four year college and then grad school even if they done poorly in high school. I know many "non traditional students" who are older and now pursuing degrees and even advanced degrees. Also, college is very affordable in the US. Many poor individuals do go. The idea that college is only for the rich in the US is a myth. My ex-girlfriend was poor and she got a degree along with her sister. She was raised in a home where they did their math homework in the cold with candle light. They were able to afford college. "60% is not normal. You ignore that fact that all these countries have something else besides University. In Germany only about 30% have a university degree, but 60% of people have completed at least one 3 year apprenticeship. So only 10% of the workforce have nothing but a high school degree." Uh, an apprenticeship is work experience. That is what we call it in the US. "Because none of that has anything to do with a country being a social democracy or not. Do you know what social democracy is?" Do you?
    1
  137. Let us focus on the NCAA and colleges as it brings up two points here. One is the plethora of variables you are ignoring here, the other is how different our culture is. On the second point, we have sports tied to our universities. Many praise that and even pursue colleges for that alone. Those sports create student jobs in athletic training, filming, equipment, parking, advertising, etc. It is a way for students to gain work experience and connections. Depending on the level of play depends on how many scholarships a university can offer. For example, in football D III schools offer zero scholarships where D I FBS schools offer around 85 full scholarships. There are restrictions such as if you play one sport, say football, and are on scholarship, you cannot do another sport, say track, unless you are on scholarship. It is to prevent the big schools from hoarding all the athletes. If you were to make college "free" then you remove scholarships. That means big schools like Texas, USC, Alabama, etc. can hoard all the best athletes and small schools like Humbolt St., Central Washington, Emporia St., etc. get literally nothing. Athletes will all flock to the big schools as they are not depending on scholarships. Thus the sports programs at small schools would suffer and go under. That means no more jobs and no more experience. The NCAA adds a lot of value to a university education and is unique in the US. If you made colleges "free" you have to account for that to where you probably have to remove it. This is your problem. You are ignoring a plethora of variables involved in this issue. You are taking a complex topic and limiting it down to 1. You have other countries 2. They run something you call "social democracies" in which you have yet to define You say there are hurdles to clear when it isn't that easy. I just gave you one major hurdle to clear that I am sure you will not be able to address as no one will be able to. How do you account for all the big athletes going to the big schools? If you remove the NCAA connection from colleges you will be completely changing a culture in the US that has been established for over 100 years. You say in Germany your system took 100 years to develop. Do you want to now change it? If the answer is no why do you want to change our way of life? There is so much to this issue you are failing to understand.
    1
  138. "Look no further than POTUS. This is a guy who has gone bankrupt 6 different times. He only had that opportunity because his daddy bought his degrees. " With success come failure. Walt Disney was no hired for not being creative enough. Many successful people failed. http://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-were-fired-before-they-became-rich-and-famous-2013-10#walt-disneys-newspaper-editor-told-the-aspiring-cartoonist-he-wasnt-creative-enough-2 Making a degree "free" makes it worthless. Why work hard for the degree when you are not investing any money in it? Several students work hard to earn a high grade to keep their scholarships.
    1
  139. Janice, here is the book http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf And here is the title of the paper on infant mortality “International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010”
    1
  140. "Living wage is subjective sure, but I'm trying to understand why you are calling it bad" I want people to earn a high wage, but there are a couple points here 1. simply using government law to raise the wage an arbitrary amount is not a solution as employers can raise prices and/or cut hours. If you say a "living wage" is $15/hr and you use the law to set it at that, and employers simply cut hours from 40 hours a week to 20 hours a week, what have you solved? Sure, they are earning a "living wage" based on your number, but they are working less hours. 2. you can accomplish a lower "living wage" by increasing productivity which means goods and services are cheaper and better. So it isn't just wages. "a living wage is enough to afford basic amenities, pay off current loans within a reasonable time frame without going into debt, and all without direct federal aid like food stamps while still having enough money to cover an unforeseen expenditure of up to 1000USD. " Very vague. To start, why have debt? If they have a "living wage" shouldn't they have no debt? Next, what are "basic amenities"? Is it a car? I am able to walk to work. In fact, I can live off of $6/hr in my city and have a savings of $200 a month if I wanted to. That is why it is subjective. 1. A company exist because of customers. Consider fast food, there are people who eat there. The workers there earn a low wage. Why? Because the food there is set at a low price. If a company were to raise prices they would lose customers. The basic business model in the market has it so they simply do not have enough money. Just like there are people who live in apartments with roommates. 2. This is an important factor as in reality many poor individuals are not going to go businesses with low wage workers. Let us use fast food. While I said fast food has low prices, compared to buying food at a store and making it yourself the price is slightly higher. I just spend $8.86 at Subway for a foot long sandwich and a large drink. I could have drank water and made a sandwich at home for less than $2. If you were to force Subway to pay their employees more there is no guarantee that low wage workers are going to eat at Subway more as they probably can't afford to. Or maybe they can. But you also have to factor in how many have transportation there. The Subway I ate has has no homes or apartments nearby. You need a car to get there or you are taking a long walk. People who have cars and drive typically earn a higher wage. If a min. wage worker earns more are they going to go to that particular Subway, or other businesses near it? Not necessarily. So those companies in that area will not be seeing higher revenue. 3. You don't need to buy from Subway. 4. My statement holds true. These people are already alive, they are living and thus are earning a "living wage". You are pushing to give them more money which they should save and invest, not spend that quickly. Crony capitalism is the result of a government with too much power. Capitalism is the free market with limited government. Crony capitalism is the complete opposite of capitalism and usually results from socialism.
    1
  141. "You mention that it can not work in a larger nation like the U.S. and I went and debunked your individualization argument." You didn't debunk it. You actually supported my argument where I would want a localized system so I can see if government is actually working for me and my local community and the people around me. "he only other 'complaint' you have is the wait times," There are others such as lack of specialists and lower R&D. The US leads the world in R&D for a reason. "more people to see more patients decreases wait times" How do you create more doctors? It isn't that easy. You have create the incentive to become a doctor it which single payer does not due to price setting. "You claim it does not work, give a better reason as to why because neither me or Janice can see a monumental problem like we do with the privatized system. " I never said it doesn't work. Glancing at my comments I never once said it doesn't work. I believe I made a comment that saying it "works" is a low bar to set. What is your standard of "working"? We have to have standards here. Single payer does many things well. It is great for very basic care and poor people can receive it. It can help in prevention. However, for advanced care it has been shown to fail as there is no incentive to become a surgeon. Single payer has many shortcomings as does the US system. That comes from the simple fact of lack of resources. The reality is that the US system is on par with other nations. Our problems are just different. Again, I never said single payer does not work. Here is what I did say. 1. The US culture is different and won't accept the high taxation 2. Our population is too large to where you cannot micromanage the system 3. Our country is too large. You could not get 60 senate democrats to agree on one form of healthcare for the longest time. Why? Because each state wants something different just like every country has something different. 4. As mentioned before our healthcare system is no par with the rest of the world. Creating a single payer system means radically changing the current system we have now. Our GDP is nearly $20 trillion, healthcare is 1/6 of that. Going to a federally ran system means killing jobs for all of those insurance workers. It means raising taxes on the majority to where they will change spending habits. Investors will stop investing due to an unpredictable and unstable economy. That will mean less jobs, less spending, less growth and an economic recession this world has ever seen. Housing is around 5% of GDP and look what recession that caused. You are asking for a complete change of 1/6 of a $20 trillion economy. That is impossible to do. You concept of insurance is 100% false. That is not how insurance works. It is no longer insurance at that point but a charity. "You want evidence that it does work and we both have provided examples of the model." Your evidence is other smaller countries with different cultures, different systems, different economies, different history. That is not proof. I outlined why single payer should not be established in this nation. It can be, but prepare for a major economic recession that will take over a decade, at least, to recover from. "You bring up this book and mention that it breaks down the numbers. You then conveniently forgot to put any of those numbers in there. The burden of proof is on you, especially when dealing with Janice as she's the one who currently observes the effects of the medical system. " Read the book. It isn't my job to read it for you. Also, bear in mind that book does not have all the answers. It is not gospel and can be argued against. My point is that universal healthcare systems can be argued against as well. But please read the book. The fact that you can't and want me to tell you want is in it makes me question your intelligence and reasoning on this topic. "That's kind of the point in one quote. The only way the system is going to work in America or even get established at all is to convince people to stop thinking just in the moment and think to the future as well." That is how capitalist think. Consider a free market system. Sure going to a free market system would mean some people on medicare and medicaid now would suffer. But in the long run you will see greater innovation and lower prices like we see with LASIK. LASIK is evidence that a free market system works well. "Janice is the one making the point here. Culture differences don't mean that we can't borrow policy ideas from other nations. " We can, but again, which ones? Those nations have different healthcare systems. That is my point. What tax code do you want? What level of spending do you want? Also, again, you have to remember that our culture is different. Is the American people willing to have around 50% of their paycheck taxed like it is in Denmark? I am not saying other countries are inferior or that the US does it better. I am saying we are different, and what we do works very well for use. The US is successful in many ways. We just can't copy other nations like that as it isn't that easy. "You don't bother to mention how they did. The likeliest answer I can think of is either federal student loans, or they were good enough to get a scholarship. College is not "very affordable" here in the U.S. It depends on where you go and what degree you are getting. My sister spent less on her full bachelors degree double major, than I did in the last year alone. " College is very affordable if you consider the payout in the end with the career you get. As for the two individuals, one received a scholarship and one worked full time. I came from a low income family. I went to a college that was $10,000 a year. I worked full time and now I get paid to go to graduate school. A $27,0000 loan is nothing considering how much a college degree can earn you. Median earnings for someone with a high school diploma only is $712 a week. For someone with a Bachelor's degree it is $1173 a week. That is $400 more. In 52 week that is over $20,000. In one year you basically paid off you loan. Also, it comes back to that college is a personal investment. You are showing employers that you are personally investing time and money to complete a long term goal to put yourself over the top of the competition. "Apprenticeships in Germany are the equivalent of a 2-year Vocational School degree here" We have those in the US as well. What is your point?
    1
  142. I will remind you what college is all about. It is a personal investment to put you over the top of the competition. Making it "free" makes the degree worthless. Why? Because you are not proving employers anything. You prove to employers that you are willing to invest time and money to accomplish a long term goal. That you are willing to do the extra work necessary to better yourself and become more productive. At times that can mean taking out a loan just like a business owner takes out a loan. A similar situation would be unpaid internships and volunteer work. Making college "free" removes that component.
    1
  143. Going back to healthcare, I broke down how implementing it would be impossible without creating a major recession. You are going to have to ask 320+ million people to accept a new healthcare system, new taxes, new way of getting paid, etc. That challenge would be just as hard, if not worse than asking the entire US to change to the metric system. It can't be done. There are too many people like me who will not accept it for many reasons. You can say what you want about me but I have legit reasons why I oppose it. Even if I feel that it is the best system I understand that are millions of people out there that will not be willing to accept the changes making any change to a universal healthcare system impossible.
    1
  144. College is an investment, period. Most degrees you can learn on your own. As I said, the MBA courses I am taking are easy. So far my lowest grade is an A- mainly because I received an 80% on a paper due to it being too short as I was too lazy to continue it. I read the book and I do well. The STEM fields are really the only fields you need to attend class for. On you scenario let us add that say one student spent more time in a professor's office, and decided to work a job on the side to pay for college which also expands a resume, and does volunteer work. You can add that. I had three jobs in college that I placed on my resume and I was accepted to 10 of the 12 grad school I applied for. One I was on a waiting list and the other was John Hopkins, my "prestige" school. I had OK test scores and a 3.3 GPA when I graduated. It goes beyond doing well in school. Grades are only a portion of the equation. You have recommendations, work experience, volunteer work. The situation you gave me only gives on portion of it. The kid paying out of pocket probably works a job making them more valuable in the work place. You do not go to college to master a trade. You can earn a Masters degree, but you are not learning a trade. You sit in a classroom, study from a text, and take tests. The value in college are the people you meet, learning how to manage time and money, and gaining experience overall whether it be work experience or through hobbies or through volunteer work.
    1
  145. People's view on college is why we see too many students go into massive debt and cannot pay it off. They view it as an extension of high school where you go to class, take test, and get a piece of paper. It is way beyond that.
    1
  146. "What does R&D have to do with specialists?" R&D comes from the profit motive. Same with specialists. There is an incentive to create. Healthcare is very dynamic.
    1
  147. Again, the point of the book is to show that there are legit arguments against universal healthcare. You are saying their aren't, or it could be Jancie. Someone did. In reality there are arguments against it.
    1
  148. "Uhh, the mixed economy is essentially just the free market with specific 'lines in the sand' where the market should not go. It's based on capitalism." Which is fine which is were we start going into the massively gray area of what is the role of government? Milton Friedman said there is a desire to have money spent by government. As long as the people are getting their money's worth that is fine. You ensure that by keeping government as local as possible. The more local government is the easier it is to control, and the people have a greater ability to see if government is actually working for them. When you go from local to state and then state to federal you lose that ability to see if government is working for you. I can look outside my window and see if my community is doing well and knowing government plays a role. If not I can change it easier (I met the candidates for mayor, I met many local politicians), or I can move and remain a US citizens. This has nothing to do with not wanting government. Government is important. It has to do with wanting a government that works for the people and one that we can manage. That means smaller, more local government. That is where population comes in that is so important. "At the end of the day this is all going to boil down to a matter of what industries should be heavily regulated and which need only light regulations to protect the free market" Saying "regulations" is vague. That differs from state to state and from area to area. In many rural areas there is little desire to have government regulations. In more urban areas there is. In some states there is little desire to have many government regulations. In some states there is. It depends on the culture. A one size fits all policy cannot work. That is why population is important. "As for LASIK, I just don't get your point. Are you trying to imply that this is exclusive to the current system?" LASIK is a form of healthcare that insurance does not cover and is, for the most part, free from government regulations when compared to healthcare. Over the years it has become much better and much cheaper. The reason why is because it is a free market system. In the US it is a myth to say that the US is a free market system. It is heavily regulated and far from a free market system.
    1
  149. https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive Read that article on regulations and healthcare.
    1
  150. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc&t=188s Watch that short video with Friedman.
    1
  151. You scenario is very unlikely as between two students there will always be many differences. You are limiting it down to simply to the type of classes and grades. College is way beyond that. As I said I had a 3.3 GPA and average, at best, test scores. But I had a lot of work experience and showed I can manage my time and complete a long term goal. Thus I was accepted to almost every grad school. On professor personally contacted me to work at CERN but I already picked a grad school at the time. In your case for that one student to pay out of pocket they most likely had a job already making them more employable with a larger resume. Employers will take that student over the one that did not pay as they probably did not get a job. Now expand that. If you make college "free" than you will have many students getting the same degree and employers will not value them as they are from students who did not have to work to pay for college, or did not have to manage a budget. Again, there is a lot more to college than just the degree, classes and grade. It is developing connections. It is learning how to manage a schedule and manage a budget. It is learning important skills to advance you the the market. Someone who goes to college not only earns a degree but learns how to interact with others, learns how to make a schedule to get things done, and learns how to manage a budget. The get a job and apply that to a job and end up in a management position. You make college "free" you literally make it high school where students show up to class, take tests, and receive a piece of paper in the end.
    1
  152. The article increased demand and hinder the growth of supply. There is more to healthcare than just beds. Every nation lacks resources in healthcare. Other nations, however, lack specialists and researchers which is why most innovation comes from the US and why there are long wait times for surgery and MRIs in other countries.
    1
  153. You never, in any of your comments, mentioned how to increase supply.
    1
  154. The problem with pushing for more doctors is that becoming a doctor is very challenging. Almost every med school has a less than 50% acceptance rate. People do not become doctors for two reasons 1. They can't do it 2. They do not want to do it Doctors are paid well and money is hardly an issue. In other nations they are not paid well which is why they lack doctors where in the US we have more specialists such as surgeons. But again, becoming a doctor is very challenging, and doctors are not going to spend all that time studying to work for the government.
    1
  155. Everything takes time. To me the reality is this. One, our healthcare system is on par with other nations. We are not inferior and anyone that says we are is simply lying or is ignorant. Next, installing a universal healthcare system would mean completely transforming our economic system. It would mean government take over of 1/6 of a $20 trillion economy. It would mean raising everyone's taxes forcing them to adjust their spending habits which translate to them not spending. It means asking a nation of 320+ million people to change how they approach healthcare and their finances. It would mean jobs being lost in insurance. It would mean a very volatile stock market as many stocks are tied to healthcare. All of that wil cause a major recession. Knowing how a recession will occur, and knowing that our healthcare system is on par with other nations, I see the desire to work with the system we have, not completely replace it. As for more doctors, the work is cumbersome. Many can do it, including myself. I choose not to for personal reasons and interest. But to become a doctor it requires a lot of work that many simply do not want to do.
    1
  156. But any improvement will take time. My approach works with the system we have in place making adjustment and changes faster and smoother.
    1
  157. Joy Bradford, poor argument as changing healthcare to that degree in any established nation is impossible. Healthcare is around 10% of a country's GDP. Changing something that large in the economy that much would cause a major recession. That is why Obamacare was so hard to pass and why we will never have a federally ran healthcare system. That big of a change is a shock to the system. I oppose a centralized healthcare system but I oppose, even more, any one of those countries doing away with they system they have as it would create more immediate problems that would take years to recover from.
    1
  158. Daniel Pierik, no credible source ranks those nations better than ours as rankings are arbitrary. Other nations have people who die due to shortcomings as well.
    1
  159. Prodesu, I waited a few hours for my care max. The US leads the world in R&D and has high quality in advance care like cancer care.
    1
  160. Ben H, no credible source ranks other countries as better as any credible sources sees how arbitrary rankings are. Those who point to rankings are, in my opinion, too ignorant to discuss healthcare as they do not understand how complex the issue really is.
    1
  161. Ben H, those "studies" don't, the are arbitrary. As two professors showed when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Those "studies" usually weigh, in an arbitrary amount, overall life expectancy high when there are many factors besides healthcare that influences life expectancy. Those rankings are arbitrary.
    1
  162. Ben H, I will bet you everything I have that you have not even read the methods of those "studies" in how those rankings were done.
    1
  163. kennethhz, in Canada people die or become worse off in waiting lines. I rather be bankrupt than dead.
    1
  164. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ I listen to sources like that and not someone from the internet.
    1
  165. How new does it have to be to not be "outdated"? Also, is that the only counter argument you have? Point being is that it shows that Canada, under a healthcare system they hardly changed in decades, has people dying. Sorry if you want to deny facts.
    1
  166. Prodesu, the US leads the world in R&D. As for your comment on where research is done, I do research at a university. Research done at a university is broad. The actual drug creation is done mostly by private dollars, not tax payers dollars. I am paid by an NIH grant, I am not developing any drugs at all.
    1
  167. SkyTech RTS, you have the right to own a gun. The government does not give you one. Also, the person who provides care has to earn money. They are not going to do it free. So in the end it does depend on how much money there is. Also, people die in other countries as well due to shortcomings in healthcare.
    1
  168. There is evidence that universal healthcare has man shortcomings.
    1
  169. SrShenanigans, Steven Crowder talks about TYT a lot and had guest like Shapiro talk about them. Right wing channels do bring up left wing voices. No one talks about Kyle because he is irrelevant.
    1
  170. Desphinx, channels like the Humanist Report and Rational National get a few thousand views a video. They are irrelevant like Kyle is.
    1
  171. Jesse Edmondson, he had a brief appearance on Fox News. His "debate" against Razorfist was against a video gamer who hardly talked about politics. Kyle is too scared to get out of his bubble and debate someone who is relevant like Shapiro. Also, he really didn't win the debate against Razorfist, they both were bad. Saying he "won" is similar to the Colts beating the Texans last season week 17. It didn't matter as both ended up 4-12. Kyle is not intelligent. He is not honest and not progressive. His channel gets around 30,000 views a video where someone like Crowder gets hundreds of thousands and Shapiro has his own radio show and has given many talks on campuses. Fact is that Kyle is irrelevant and he has to do smear videos like these on popular individuals like Shapiro to project.
    1
  172. He has been on Fox once, and the debate with razorfist was like the Texans vs Colts football game week 17 last year. Both teams sucked so it didn't matter. Both Kyle and Razorfist were bad, it doesn't matter who won.
    1