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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Asked Very Stupid Healthcare Question From Corporate Media Host" video.

Considering how Bernie can never get into details on his plans I feel his followers are not too bright.
2
So framing of the question is the issue? I agree, and I feel that same way about polls. But when Bernie frames something in a particular way that is fine? Or when polls are framed in a certain way that is fine? Kyle continues to show he is a hack. And Bernie needs to stop talking about healthcare, he is doing more harm than good spreading ignorance on healthcare.
1
It won't be cheaper.
1
@skyblue9991 , easy. You will be increasing the demand for something without increasing the supply. That alone will jack up prices much like the federal student loan program led to higher tuition costs. The consumer does not care about the cost as they are not paying. The supplier can jack up the cost at that point. If the government refuses to pay than the government will get voted out, thus the price goes up.
1
@skyblue9991 , the Koch brothers study does not say that. I suggest you actually read the study and not a bias report that cherry picks one number. As for cost, you have to consider many factors. 1. The US arguably has the best results. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas where he argues that point. 2. We produce the most drugs and have the best R&D in the world, that comes at a cost. 3. A lot of our high costs comes from government involvement as pointed out in this article. https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive Government regulating prices won't work as something has to give. If the government force prices to be artificially low than the quality will drop. Compare it to you. Say the government forced your wage to be no higher than $10/hr. Will you work any harder? No, because no matter how hard you work you will never earn more. The same is with healthcare. If you force prices low than provides will simply lower quality. We see this in cities with rent control. You say universal healthcare is a "no brainer" when in reality experts on both sides disagree.
1
Kyle has a handful of talking points and that's it. He will be destroyed by Shapiro who knows what he is talking about on these issues compared to Kyle. Not saying Shapiro is an expert, I am saying Kyle is very shallow and too easy of an opponent.
1
You will never get the truth from Kyle.
1
Bernie did vote for the ACA, but when pressed on the issue he cannot defend it. So why did he vote for it?
1
@Korean_Autist_AbsoluteMF , it isn't just me that feels that way, experts do as well https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326121/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/ It mainly has to do with limited resources and what you consider the minimum level of healthcare to be considered a "right". Just making it a right does not magically create resources.
1
@henrygustav7948 , there have to be details to begin with.
1
@WaikikiJason ok, what tax code? What do you do with workers in insurance industry when they lose their job? How do you manage it financially? How do you account for limited resources? How do you account for bureaucracy? You have experts that argue these points for a reason.
1
@John Jay , Trump is not promising these pie in they sky ideas.
1
@rileyrobertson7571 , Pakman has a very shallow understanding of economics. Economics is way more complex than how he presents it. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy where our nation has 320+ million people and a $20 trillion economy. Just saying we can expand medicare to all is a gross over simplification of this complex issue and ignores many factors.
1
James Michael Campbell , climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years, what's your point?
1
@ineverskiplegday3327 , Trump is not promising these pie in the sky programs.
1
elijah mikle , I have read them and come out with more questions than answers. He has no details and ignore many factors related to economics.
1
@Korean_Autist_AbsoluteMF , also, again, experts disagree with healthcare being a right. But why listen to experts when you can listen to Bernie as he has so many publications and research related to healthcare.
1
@John Jay , not really a counter argument but whatever.
1
@Brian Campbell , I have seen a lot. Let me ask you this, in Bernie's tuition free college plan how would he account for the NCAA? And this question is open to anyone. I have not seen him address that.
1
@Korean_Autist_AbsoluteMF , wow, ok, a minute and a half in and I can tell you right away that is not how the argument will ensue. I will ask you on tuition free college, how do you handle the NCAA? Also, next, do you know the real value of college? Compare college to high school to see that. It also goes on to mention other programs we pay for by the government where issues like roads are locally ran and funded. Overall, the issue is far more complex than is what is being laid out. This is why you refuse to have a discussion with me and just sent me a video that strawmans others. I will finish watching the video later, but I am studying for my MBA test.
1
@John Jay , what does me being mentally ill have to do with anything? Do you feel people with a mental illness are inferior? How liberal of you.
1
@Korean_Autist_AbsoluteMF , that isn't what the study says. Have you actually read the study?
1
elijah mikle , look at the links I posted. Those are published reports that have been cited.
1
@henrygustav7948 , 2% sounds low. Also, how do you account for people losing their jobs when private insurance is gone? How do you account for the change in market when people see their taxes go up? How will doctors react when they have to take a 40% paycut along with taking on more patients? The US cannot afford anything it wants, resources are limited.
1
@henrygustav7948 , that isn't what the study says. It gave the cost for the federal government and the number they gave was a low estimate where they said that chances are it will cost more. Also, that number was just for public spending and does not include private spending (it does on page 4 but not in the abstract). The Peri study is full of flaws and shortcomings which is why no one besides far leftists point to it.
1
@henrygustav7948 , it hasn't been addressed in the Peri study. They simply said they will retrain workers to work elsewhere. Retrain them in what? And what makes you think they have the ability to learn new skills? Also, when people get new jobs they have to move. How do you account for changes in the housing industry and prices? Will the government assist in selling homes? And what about the changes in prices? Or how about this, when a private insurance company goes under that means less tax revenue for those local areas due to less property taxes, how do you account for that? The Peri study didn't. I am all for fixing the healthcare issue in our nation, I just feel medicare for all is not the approach and those that do support it have no details in how it will be done.
1
@henrygustav7948 , I pointed out the flaws. It makes vague assumptions and throws out numbers with little justification. Healthcare is 1/6 of our $20 trillion economy. There are many little factors that will add up to create big ones that are impossible to account for. Mainly, how will people react? You can't predict that. You say single payer is objectively better, in what ways? Also, many experts will disagree. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas. Taxes do fund federal spending.
1
@henrygustav7948 , the federal reserve controls the money supply. In order for the federal government to have money to spend it needs to tax, period.
1
@Laura Indiana , Ok, to give one example, how will he handle the NCAA and tuition free college?
1
@henrygustav7948 , taxes do fund federal spending. I have read the Peri study, it doesn't address the issues I brought up and you are ignoring the issues I brought up.
1
@henrygustav7948 "An average of one year of job retraining support. As with the health insurance industry workers, we assume that this level of support will be approximately equal to the current average level of one year of college tuition plus fees at U.S. public universities. " Right there, "assume". Also, you are assuming people have the ability to learn a new skill at a later age (in their 30s with family to raise). And after that they will have to find a new job which may require moving. It says $10,000 per worker for relocation, where does it get that number? Or, that's right, it "assumes". It does not factor in the change of housing prices being influenced by changes in demand. And again, what about local tax revenue due to less property taxes. I am sorry, but saying "assume" is a major flaw.
1
@henrygustav7948 , $10,000 seems awfully low for relocation.
1
@henrygustav7948 , how can the government provide affordable housing? Now you are adding costs to the system which immediately make the Peri study pointless. Many small businesses don't provide healthcare to employees. Also, the reason why employers provide healthcare is because of they payroll tax. What to stop that issue remove the payroll tax, don't expand the government. What you are pointing out is government creating a problem and thus expanding it. That is like breaking someone's leg and then giving them crutches saying you helped them.
1
@Laura Indiana , universities can't afford to pay athletes. Also, laws places limitations on it.
1
@henrygustav7948 , so an extreme case is a compromise to you?
1
@Laura Indiana , the only sports that can pay athletes are the large football and basketball programs like Duke basketball or Alabama football. That's it. The rest can't afford it. Scholarships are the best route to go. Even though tuition is higher in a school like Stanford compare to a school like Wyoming, in the end the scholarship will pay for the introductory chemistry course which teaches the same material, thus, based on product, the scholarships are the same. That, as opposed to Stanford paying athletes $5000 a month where WY will pay only $1000 a month. Also, Title IX means that the starting QB in Clemson will have to be paid the same as the backup catch on the softball team. So there is that legal battle as well. So no, universities cannot pay athletes as they simply can't afford it and it will create a major imbalance in competition.
1
@Laura Indiana , college athletes being paid has been discusses for decades. It is not going to happen.
1
@henrygustav7948 , I agree, everything is connected. So you are now admitting the Peri study is worthless, thanks.
1
@Laura Indiana , sports are a major part of education in colleges. People get hands on training. For example, you have student workers in media, student trainers, student managers, etc. Sports also builds up team work and exercise which are important to education. That is why universities have gyms.
1
@Laura Indiana , you see, I have a strong interest in college athletics as I worked in it for years. Right there you are seeing a difference of opinions that Bernie and his fans don't address.
1
@henrygustav7948 , it is simple economics that taxes pay for federal spending. I know you support MMT as if it is some novel idea when in reality it isn't. The idea that the government can just print money is not new, it is what the Roman Empire did and one of the ways it ended their power. Zimbabwe does the same thing as well. I mean, why take the time to print money? Why not just mail people paper plates that say $1 trillion on it? We will all be trllionaires!
1
@jojoboko6990 1. I agree, the Mercatus study has shortcomings as well, so do the authors. That is why the cost analysis they gave has a wide range to it. The reality is this, healthcare is 1/6 of our $20 trillion economy in a nation of 320+ million people. You can't accurately predict how much Medicare for all will cost. Based on history it will cost a lot as most federal programs ended up costing more than projected. That is why the nation is over $20 trillion in debt. You can't predict human behavior, you are making assumptions that people will believe that M4A will save them money. Why? What makes you think that? Many people can't manage their own budget, but you feel they will understand M4A will save them money (supposedly)? You are ignoring many factors such as local tax revenue being changes due to businesses shutting down, or less consumption due to people paying higher taxes where most local taxes are consumption taxes. Those things, in a nation fo 320+ million people, add up. 2. There are three main issues to climate change a: How much does man play a role? b: Is the current change even bad? c: If it is bad, what is the best approach in fixing it? The reality is we know very little about climate change and the influence on the ecosystem. 3. "Assume" is a major flaw. You can assume a lot. I have 4 peer reviewed papers and whenever one "assumes" something they give a justification for it. For example, if someone does a theoretical study and ignores higher order terms it is because those terms don't have a significant amount of influence on the numbers and the usually cite a paper that shows that. Or in a paper I am working on now, I say a data set is reliable despite some other factors playing a role in the numbers. My justification is that other factor contributes to less than 5% of the numbers which is within my overall error bar. Or another case I say an initial value is zero and I base that on the theory behind what I study. You can call it "assuming", but I give strong justification for it. I just don't "assume" things, I cite previous work to justify my case. You have to give a reason for you assumptions. 4. I never said every study is worthless. I am finding the Peri study unreliable as they are trying to make a bold prediction on something you can't predict. It is like predicting who will win the Super Bowl in 2030. You can't as there are way too many factors involved. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy that is $20 trillion and our nation has 320+ million people. You can't predict the cost of M4A that closely. It is impossible.
1
@Stevesrssrssrs , three major problems with that polling data 1. Polls are unreliable as they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts on them. Opinions change when more information is given. Even Kyle mentioned that how wording the question can influence the results. Difference is that I have standards and principles and hold that to almost every poll. Kyle doesn't. He praises the polls that support his ideas and rip on those that don't. 2. Most of those things that are favorable we already have 3. Even if they are favorable it depends on how much people really care about the topic. For example, if someone supports stronger gun laws, but support border security more, they will vote for the candidate for stronger borders security over the one that pushes for more gun laws.
1
@henrygustav7948 , After WWII the UK was rebuilding so they can the ability to establish whatever they want. We are developed. Bad comparison.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , what resources? I study science for a living. Tell me, how does photosynthesis work? You can't tell me how it works physically as we don't know. Photosynthesis is one of the most energy efficient processes we have in nature but theory suggests that is should be, at best, 50% efficient where it is actually 90% efficient. I know this because I have colleagues who work on that topic. The reality is that in science we know very little. I am publishing a paper where I am looking at two molecules, one with 13 atoms and another with 16, that's it. And the impact factor we are pushing it is in 12 which is very respectable. That shows how little we know in science. What you are saying are simply talking points. You say "it takes millions of years for the noticeable change to the climate to occur...." What do you base that off of? What control do you have to compare to? And is that even bad? Explain to me how that is good or bad? Healthcare is not a human right as it requires someone to provide it. Also, what level of healthcare is a right? You have to give a minimum standard. You aren't. You are making a appeal to emotion statement with no standard or objective reasoning attached to it. At what point is healthcare no longer a right? Resources are limited. We have a waiting list for organs for example. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not the law, also, it contradicts itself. It says that people have the right to vacation but also have the right to and education and healthcare. So if every doctor uses their right to a vacation, who will provide healthcare? Something has to give. Someone's rights has to be violated.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , here is the problem with the far left. You have no desire to have an actual conversation on issues but push extreme ideas. You push extreme ideas but when challenged you claim that I am in the wrong but give zero, objective reasons why. You just appeal to emotions.
1
@henrygustav7948 , I understand what MMT is. It is nothing new. It is the idea that we can just print money which has been practice all throughout history and has failed. Also, the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, not the federal government. I suggest you study actual economics.
1
@Ricky Salazarr ,I do study science for a living. What are you talking about with ATP? I am talking about light conversion with photosynthesis. We don't know how it happens physically with quantum coherence. We don't know how the ecosystem evolves. What makes you think we can make a hard conclusion in saying that current climate change is bad? We can as we don't know how the ecosystem will evolve as we don't know the physical mechanism of evolution to being with. Or are you someone that denies evolution? I feel you do. Why do you deny evolution? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has zero legal bind in the US. It is a document that contradicts itself as someone's rights has to be violated in order to secure the rights of others. For example, if every doctor wanted a certain holiday off and someone gets sick that day, who's right do you violate? Do you deny that person healthcare or do you force a doctor to work? Something has to give. In the US rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. You need to understand that law in the US and not just use appeal to emotion statements. I will also ask again, why do you deny evolution?
1
@Ricky Salazarr , uh we know very little in science. That is why we continue to do research in it. There is a huge degree of uncertainty in what we know. You are literally slapping scientists in the face saying uncertainty is low. New techniques are being developed still in order to expand our knowledge. For example, to study photosynthesis the new technique of 2D EV was developed around 20 years ago. But according to you that is a waste of time as we apparently know everything. I guess I should find a new profession since my current research is irrelevant.
1
@henrygustav7948 , also, what do you mean the US can spend without worry of inflation? That makes zero sense. You need to study economics bud.
1
@henrygustav7948 MMT is a 3rd grade understanding of economics. The Fed controls the money supply so yes, the federal government can go broke.
1
@henrygustav7948 , the Fed controls the money supply by buying and selling securities along with changing interest rates.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , there is not legal binding in what the UN produces. With life expectancy there are factors outside of healthcare that influence that. For example, two professors showed when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The US is number 1 in OECD nations in obesity rates where high obesity leads to a shorter life. Out of OECD nations the US has the highest population of blacks where blacks have a higher risk of heart disease which increases their chance of deaths. So you can't just point to overall life expectancy as factors outside of healthcare influence it such as genetics and life style choices. Uh, we don't know how photosynthesis happens. Prof. Like Greg Engel from the University of Chicago and Prof. Graham Fleming from Berkley do research on photosynthesis using non-linear techniques. Quantum coherence has a lot to do with efficiency. Not to be rude but I know a lot about this topic because, again, I have friends who work in that field. That is why I can name prof. who work in it off of the top of my head.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , how did I get "schooled"? You are saying we understand photosynthesis. I guess Prof. Fleming and Prof. Engel are wasting their time. I guess I better contact them and let them know.
1
@henrygustav7948 , tell me this, in all of this why do you ignore the Federal Reserve?
1
@henrygustav7948 , the Fed buys and sells securities with larger banks where banks loan out that money. That controls the money supply referred to M0 money. Other forms of money, such as M1, M2, etc. are in the forms of savings and bonds. M0 is typically immediate money as it is there in circulation such as dollars and coins. M1 is in savings and takes times to pull out. With interest rates the Fed also controls the money supply. Difference in interest rates means spending habits will change. If interest rates are low than people will spend as opposed to save as keeping the money in banks produce nothing so they rather buy assets. With higher interest rates people will save as they will gain money through interest. Now banks are required to loan out 90% of their securities (keeping only around 10%). With that this creates what is known as the "inverted pyramid" where loaning money generates more where, once again, that is influenced with interest rates. The Fed controls the money supply, not the federal government. All the federal government does is print and coin money. It prints and coin money based on the demand of it set by the Federal Reserve. If the federal government were to just print a lot of money than the Federal Reserve will lower the value of it through interest rates on how many securities they buy/sell. MMT ignores all of that based on what I read. MMT assumes the federal government can just print money to pay for things when in reality they can't.
1
@henrygustav7948 , that is not how it works. It buys and sells securities with banks. The Fed has the securities to buy and sell. Reserves are loaned out. That was a major issue with QE was that many economists were worried that many banks would simply loan out the money given to them causing massive inflation. Congress has the power of the purse. It gains revenue through taxes. The percentage is not "much less" than 10%. It is around 10 to 12 percent and has been that way for decades. Banks do consider how much reserves they have to assess. You see, I took an entire semester long course on this subject, it was a grad level course. You are telling me to read an article. I would trust my textbooks, Ben Bernanke's book, and my professor over you and some article. MMT addresses nothing I talk about as MMT is not how the economy works. If the federal government were to print more money the Fed would jack up interest rates to prevent inflation and slow down the money flow. What "academic study"?
1
@henrygustav7948 , the federal government prints money based on demand. it can print a lot of money to which the Fed will react with higher interest rates and buying back securities.
1
@henrygustav7948 , bank loans are not created out of thin air. Where do you get your information? If that were the case than banks would be loaning out money left and right non-stop.
1
@henrygustav7948 , cute, but how is that source reliable? Not peer reviewed and not from a text book.
1
@henrygustav7948 , the fact you said that banks make money out of thin air completely discredits all you say.
1
@henrygustav7948 , banks do not create money out of thin air. You saying that discredits everything you said.
1
@henrygustav7948 , 2008 was the result of the Fed keeping interest rates low. Banks can only lend out what they have. If they were allowed to loan out money left and right they would be doing it now at high rates to generate more income. If they fail the FDIC will bail them out. Reality is that banks can't loan out what they don't have. They have to keep around 10% of reserves. Depressions were caused by the federal reserve doing easy monetary policy. Milton Friedman mention this and Ben Bernanke agreed. It wasn't from the federal government limiting spending.
1
@henrygustav7948 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S Before the great recession federal government spending was trending upwards.
1
@henrygustav7948 , what's your point with your graph?
1
@henrygustav7948 , I trust all the other economists who don't teach MMT. So you have two economists where I have the rest.
1
@henrygustav7948 I have read the material. MMT disregards the federal reserve's role in money creation. It has a 3rd grade analysis of the economy in saying that government can just create money and tax it away. It isn't that easy. There is a reason why it is not taught in any basic economics course. Here is why I don't trust MMT https://www.aei.org/publication/explaining-the-flaws-of-modern-monetary-theory-a-short-read-qa-with-stan-veuger/ "There are very few explicit academic style articles on the topic. There are no real articles in serious academic journals. " That's the point, show me actual peer reviewed academic journals that have research on MMT. And I want ones with respectable impact factors. You gave me a book and some blogs. That's it.
1
@henrygustav7948 , yeah, ok, whatever. I rather trust economics that has been challenged in peer reviewed publications and not posted on blogs.
1
@henrygustav7948 , a depression occurred due to low interest rates set by the federal reserve creating a bubble. Even Ben Bernanke admitted that. But what does he know?
1
@Ricky Salazarr , uh, I personally know Graham and know his results very well. Sorry, but you are not going to do well on this argument. This field is a major part of my life.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. As I said, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in overall life expectancy. Also, one can easily argue that cardiovascular disease is a result of bad lifestyle choices. Again, we are number 1 on obesity rates of OECD nations. Why did you ignore that point? As Prof. Scott Atlas said, we lead the world in survival rates. That is when you are sick and you receive care you have a higher chance of living in the US system. Read his book "In Excellent Health".
1
@thedebate4836 , Bernie said he wants to make college tuition free. Even small colleges offer scholarships to their athletes. So how do you address the NCAA?
1
@henrygustav7948 , if banks created money out of thin air they would be doing it left and right because even if people defaulted on their loans banks have three things to rely on 1. The FDIC 2. The bailouts 3. The fact that other people will pay their loans making up the difference. On the last part, it would be literally banks throwing out a ton of loans to increase their chance of success. They don't because of limitation on reserves. It is safe to say you have never studied economics. Again, point to me peer reviewed publications on MMT in journals of high impact. Until you do I can say, with 100% certainty, that MMT is a joke. Why? Because it has not gone through the scrutiny of the peer reviewed process meaning any supporters of MMT do not receive supports from their peers.
1
@davidlafleche1142 , what is funny is that Kyle posted a video with Cory Booker and a lady on Medicare and how she cannot afford her healthcare. I pointed that out and people said "Bernie would make Medicare cover all under his plan" as if we are supposed to trust his plan to actually work while current Medicare has many failures. That is literally "they did not do correct socialism" argument.
1
@henrygustav7948 , no peer reviewed papers I see. Moving on.
1
@henrygustav7948 , you know, anyone can write blogs. The issue is that MMT is not accepted by the experts in the field. It if did than there would be peer reviewed papers to point to you you said there has been 20 years of studies.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , yeah, ok.
1
@henrygustav7948 , so no peer reviewed sources. I will take that as MMT is not taken seriously.
1
@Ricky Salazarr , I am pointing out how dynamic science is and how little we know. Two new techniques are being developed in 2D ATR and 2D white light. But according to you science is settled, so why keep developing?
1