Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Responds To Trump's State Of The Union With Policy Substance" video.

  1. Jakob, his policies are not proven to be successful. In many cases they are failures.
    5
  2. Bernie says appeal to emotion rhetoric just to get votes. He caters to useful idiots.
    5
  3. Hearing this speech it isn't surprising that Bernie lost. He is a nut.
    5
  4. You were close. He brought up billionaires and the Koch brothers. If no millionaires and billionaires existed, what would be Bernie's economic plan?
    3
  5. Remember, if you are white you can't be poor.
    3
  6. "Lol, the Conservabots are in full force today. Not going to bother taking the bait. Try again." I am more than willing to have a discussion. Pick any policy that Bernie brought up and we can.
    3
  7. StrikeWing17971, the gender pay gap is a myth. Women earn less because they pursue degrees that are valued less and many decide to get pregnant and start a family. The majority of the political left understand this which is why only radicals like Bernie Sanders bring it up.
    2
  8. Attila the Fun, exactly. Bernie is a politician 100%. He will say what he wants to get votes and do nothing as a whole.
    2
  9. "Creating momentum for universal health care and a living wage" Universal healthcare is not any better than the system we have now and implementing it will lead to a major economic recession. "Living wage" is a subjective term that in the end means nothing. It is there to appeal to emotions.
    2
  10. "I was with you when you talked about the living wage being an emotional thing." It is. What is a "living wage"? What is it based off of? There are too many variables to set one. I earn $23,000 a year and I am fine. For others that is not enough.
    2
  11. "But discussing KKK being founded by democrats is irrelevant." It isn't irrelevant because is people want to bring up the past we can. To me the past is done. I look at current politics. But if people want to rip on republicans for past events I can do the same for democrats.
    2
  12. The Quanto, the rich work extremely long hours. You could never do what they do.
    1
  13. MaccDaKnife, being dynamic is progressive. Bernie is no dynamic at all.
    1
  14. When he does it reveals a few things 1. It is essentially a non-issue 2. It is a result of big government 3. His policies will not make things better 4. It is actually good for society in many ways Bernie says it to stir up emotions of people who are ignorant in economics.
    1
  15. "He gave a specific right here. He said the top 0.1% own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%" And? Someone with no assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because a lot of people have loans and thus have negative wealth. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied to their home. Beyond owning home the average person has little to now wealth. Not everyone owns a major business. Most in the top 0.1% own shares of major businesses. That is where their wealth is derived from.
    1
  16. "Pat, if there are a finite amount of goods (which there are) and a finite amount of purchasing power (which there is), then any group that small that owns that much is a problem. " Their value comes from their company. You example of 1000 people with 10,000 items is flawed. But let us go with it. Say one person takes 1 item and leaves the 9,999 items for the rest of the 999 people. That one person took an item and turns it into a major corporations with over a billion shares of stocks. They are now wealth with just that one item. Or say that one item was the Hope Diamond and the rest were just rocks. It is much more complicated than you think. That is why Bernie never gets into details, his fans are too stupid to understand.
    1
  17. Really? I saw an idiot.
    1
  18. wesley, Bernie "fights" for those things because that is his strategy to win and gain votes.
    1
  19. Jack Ban, a democrat created the KKK. Also, you had the Southern Manifesto signed by 99 democrats and only 2 republicans. But hey, go off of a few quotes by random people.
    1
  20. Black Dream, I have looked at the numbers, and so have others. Here is a book on the issue https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  21. " Yes it is. You live in the ONLY industrialized society on the planet that doesn't have a single payer system and you pay lots and lots more than the rest does. " Why do we pay lots more? Well one can be because of our R&D. Look at this paper “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed "Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US." "Single payer covers more people and costs less at the same time." That is a leftist talking point. Many have died on waiting lists in single payer systems. It has shortcomings. " Look up what the UK pays per citizen, look up what the Canadians pay. " I have, now look at the shortcomings. You get what you pay for.
    1
  22. " Except you righties love to omit the fact that there was a thing called the Southern Strategy in which the Democrats of those days are now the Republitards of today." The whole "they switched" argument is asinine. In the end they were democrats. I am willing to accept that what happened in the past does not represent now. However, you aren't so you say "they switched".
    1
  23. dcon9995, what book should I read? Please give me a list if you know so much.
    1
  24. " meanwhile you have not shown any sort of proof for this so called waiting list" I gave title of papers talking about waiting lists. Here they are again "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “  "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart Just put those titles in Google and they will pop up.  "plus, even in the U.S. we have waiting lists, for example, for heart transplants, the difference is that in the U.S. we often prioritize money, in those countries they prioritize health needs. " Again, I just gave you titles of papers of people dying waiting for heart surgery in Canada. It happens in other countries. Rationing is a thing based limited resources. We do it based on need in the US as well. “The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine” Chest Read that paper on it. " Data from the U.S. Census, used to determine the amount of medical bankruptcies " Ok, and? Poor people have a higher risk of going bankrupt. What's your point? "The American Journal of Public Health - Deaths linked to lack of health coverage" I have read that, and here is a counter argument to that from a Harvard professor " Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health. "So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said." What does that mean? Well, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with those in poverty. So the question becomes are they dying due to lack of insurance or due to being in bad health to begin with? 45,000 is 0.01% of the overall population. When you deal with numbers that small a lot can factor in for the reasoning. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents and the accidents occur for many reasons. "Plus, you never showed any proof that they didn't switched? " Neither did you. I never said they switched. We are talking about something over 50 years ago. That is irrelevant to today's politicians. " but you haven't given any reason(s) disproving the use of the Southern Strategy by Republicans. Here is a link " That occurred around the same time as the Southern Manifesto. There are also some debates on the Southern Strategy as it can be tied to economic reasons or religion. But hey, if you want to go with racism by a group of people in the 50s and 60s, then you have to accept that the Democrats, in the same time period, did the Southern Manifesto.
    1
  25. El Pote de Near, you can also read this book on healthcare if you want https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Healthcare is a complex issue. You are limiting the argument down to bankruptcy and one study that gives numbers that are hard to justify.
    1
  26. Black Dream, the satisfaction rate is purely subjective. What goes on in the UK and Canada is different from the US. You talk about personal experience but when put up to a vote in Colorado 80% said no to universal healthcare. After Obamacare was passed people voted out democrats. The culture in the US is different than that of Canada and the UK. Even if we are dissatisfied with our system the people clearly do not want a government run system based on how every attempt to create one failed. This is not to be rude but at this point you are digging for anything to support single payer where you are ignoring objective measures and going off of subjective. There is value in that argument but is shows that single payer is not as strong as you make it out to be at that point.
    1
  27. " The debate isn't about single payer being perfect, it's about whether or not it's better than our current system. Based on the evidence at hand it is in most cases, flaws aside. " Objectively it isn't. I gave numerous sources showing that. When you run through the numbers the reality is that single payer is not any better than what the US has. Is it worse? No, and I criticize people who make that claim. Single payer does many things well, but it has many shortcomings. This is why you resort to polls which are subjective. People in those countries do not experience any other system and they have a different mentality compare to people in the US. That poll is similar to a poll of what is their favorite sport or favorite past time. It is meaningless. The issue is that healthcare is a very complex issue with many moving parts. The debate cannot be settled off of subjective polls and raw stats. There is a lot to it. "especially considering that people support the ACA more than Obama care based on name alone " I question that as I have not seen strong evidence showing that is true. Most people have no idea what is in the ACA or how it will effect the economy. That is why Prof. Gruber made the response he did about the ACA when creating it. In short, people are idiots. Well, that may be too harsh. My textbook states it like that. But in reality people just don't know. " Also, wasn't the most recent debate about the Medicaid expansion repeal all the talk? People hated the individual mandate, not the program as a whole. People love the Medicaid expansion the ACA(Obama care) provided." Sure, but would they support higher taxes? In Colorado they said no. An issue we have in the US is that people will support expanding social programs like Medicaid but not paying more themselves. Supporting medicaid expansion on the surface means nothing as many will oppose raising taxes while doing it. "People don't want a government run system? Have you seen the numbers on support for Medicare and Medicaid? Has either of them failed?" Medicare and medicaid are losing money, and many doctors do not take medicare. And I have seen the numbers on support, they are questionable. Remember, 80% of voters said no in Colorado when asked to pass universal healthcare. "can share excerpts from your sources that illustrate why our system is better?" I never said our system was better. I said it was on par with the rest of the world. There are many parts to this. You cannot just limit it down to a few excerpts. That is why I encourage you to read these sources and find others. To give you one example from the paper “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed "Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US" When you talk about costs that is one of many things to consider. Another is from this report from the CDC “International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010” "About 39% of the United States' higher infant mortality rate when compared with that of Sweden was due to the higher U.S. percentage of preterm births."   If you read the article they showed that if the US had the same percentage of preterm births as Sweden and used the same standard of infant mortality rate of Sweden after 37 weeks of gestation the US infant mortality rate will be at 2.4 which is comparable to Sweden's 2.1. Point being, there is a lot to healthcare. You are looking for a simple answer to a complex question. This isn't an issue where you can just "Google it" or find a conclusion in a report. This is an issue that requires teams of researcher looking at every possible case and coming up with a report rich with asterisks that may give a conclusion. I am not someone that says the US system does it better as I see nothing that makes that so. But I also see nothing that shows that single payer is better. So with that I push to improve the system we have now as opposed to completely destroying it, which will bring us into a major recession, and replacing it with something that is not better.
    1
  28. Black Dream, how is single payer better?
    1
  29. Black Dream, point by point 1. Again, subjective. I feel the US healthcare system is great as I pay $0 and never had any problems. Does that make it true? Does that mean it has not problems? People experience what they live with and most never experience another system. Polling people who never experienced another system is not an accurate way to come up with a conclusion. Anyway, Gallup is not a reliable polling cite. They did not do a presidential election poll. Gallup said that over 60% of the nation wants universal healthcare but 80% in Colorado said no. Gallup said that over 80% wanted expanded universal background check on guns but in Maine that law was voted down by the people and in NV it passed by only 0.45%. You point to these polls is not an argument because one, Gallup has been wrong lately. And two, it is 100% subjective. You are looking at polls where people most likely never experienced another system or had to deal with healthcare that much to begin with. 2. You just agreed that people do not know, so why are you trusting the polls? You just contradicted yourself. I told you why I do not trust the polls, people have little experience in healthcare. You trust those polls but then turn around and say that people do not know better? 3. This is our culture. People like to control their own money because in all reality people do it better than the government. Even if that wasn't the case it comes down to freedom and liberty. We work for that money and we should be able to spend it as we please. Even at that little suggests single payer would save people money. I would personally be paying more as I already pay $0 in healthcare. Same with almost everyone I know. Most people do not pay a dime in healthcare as their employers pay for it. 4. Medicare, at least, is losing money. Even Bernie admitted that. Adding more people to it is not a solution. Saying it "works" everywhere in the world is a very low bar to set and is vague. How does it "work"? By what standard? I can remove someone's head lice problem by shaving their head, is that a solution? I can get rid of a rat infestation problem in a building by blowing it up, is that a solution? "All data is questionable btw, even yours. " It isn't so much questionable but more of it can be interpreted in many ways. There are numerous statistical analysis you can do that can create any ranking where many can have the US as number 1. "Combine this with the fact that healthcare costs are projected to increase and you have another win for a single payer system, as it's been shown that it would save money. " That is false. To begin with that makes zero sense economically that increasing demand would save money. It will lead to higher costs. This is why no economist and politician (besides radical Bernie) points to this analysis. Next, on these numbers. The cost of single payer varies as healthcare costs vary. That source you gave me that gives the $49 trillion talks about a 5.6% growth when you cannot predict that far ahead. There are too many variables. I could have looked over it by the Urban Institute does not mention the 5.6% growth rate. They only mention that they assumed a 0.5% lower than expected growth rate (page 9 of the report). If you read page 8 of the Urban Institute's report at the paragraph starting at "By buidling...." they make the assumption that all demand is met. So that $32 trillion is a gross underestimation. Comparing it to the $49 trillion is comparing apples and oranges. That is why I do not buy into the $17 trillion talking point. I go off of history on how the federal government is always underestimating how much these programs cost and how Medicare is losing money. I have to ask, you are actually reading these reports or are you just blindly following the headlines? "The examples you list are questionable, the first is mere speculation." How so? " In regards to infant mortality, I would ask how or if abortions factor into the statistic. " That is a good point. What that shows is that comparing numbers between countries is difficult due to the many differences. "All that said, I do agree that it is a complex issue, but the free market ain't cutting it here in the US. " Except we do not have a free market system. We have in over 50 years. "More money for similar results? No thanks." We have more R&D which is vital in improving our system.
    1
  30. Black Dream, 1. No it can't. They are subjective. Polling people who have never experienced multiple systems and know very little about healthcare in general is not an argument. This is why we do not run our country on polls. This is why we never have anything at the federal level determined by a majority. And as voting results show, people do not want government run healthcare. Colorado voters turned it down, and republicans won because of Obamacare in 2010. 2. People hated Obamacare. Republicans ran on repealing it and they won. But now you are back pedaling. Are people smart or not? If they confuse Obamacare with the ACA then are they smart? What is it. 3. "Can you show me that private insurance companies work better for people than government funded programs? To say you and most people you know pay $0 for health insurance is misleading. As far as I know most companies provide health insurance, but at a cost to the employee. I currently pay about $160 per pay period for a silver level HRA from United. Look at your next pay stub for healthcare deductions." It is free for me and my co-workers. We pay zero. Nothing is taken out of our paychecks. As for insurance companies working better than government funded programs. Medicare is losing money. And the private sector has always done it better than the public on the large scale. The issue is that we DO NOT have a free market system. " This is a perfect segway into another benefit for single payer; businesses wouldn't have to fund employee healthcare." Why do they fund healthcare? Because of the payroll tax. It is a tax free way to pay employees and healthcare is not payroll. Same with other benefits. If employers do not have to pay healthcare insurance than they just won't pay employees. Employee are now earning less. "How many more full-time jobs could be created under a single payer system?" Not many as you are still having to clear the hurdle of the payroll tax. Payroll will go up expanding people to full time. Bernie wants to pay for universal healthcare by expanding the payroll tax. 4. Every country runs their own system. Which one do you want to cover? And those countries have their own, unique economies. Norway does well because they are top 5 in oil productivity. How many leftists where want to drill for our own oil? Demark has mandatory military. Saying it "works" in other countries is very vague and a low standard to set. Why does it work? How do they manage it? What is their overall economy like? How are their politicians? How is the general public? Read the book "Debunking Utopia". There the author makes the claim that in other countries they live healthier lifestyle so the system is not dragged down. In the US we are unique in that over 40% of our food dollar is used eating out. Other countries are around half of that. Eating out is usually less healthy. "Because what Bernie suggests is ultimately removing the profit motive of the greedy middle man. United healthcare alone generated almost $11 billion in profit last year. No profit motive beyond operating costs with Medicare or Medicaid. " Not true as profit motive leads to more productivity and innovation. You need resources to invest and grow. Without profit you do not get that. That is why the government hardly innovates. "Why not? If you average the percentages of healthcare costs increases over 10 years from 2005-2015 you get a 5.38% increase. Seems they just followed the trends over the last decade. Based on those numbers the figures seem reasonable to me." Because several factors contribute to that growth. The overall economy, taxes, regulations, etc. "It's seems as if they are just throwing out possible causes, and it still doesn't necessarily account for the 13 or 14 other countries that are ahead of the US." Ahead of us how? Again, we lead the world in R&D. You are looking at just providing healthcare but fail to realize how dynamic healthcare is as an industry. Due to evolution diseases become resistant to drugs requiring new ones. New illnesses and problems come up that require research to battle. Healthcare is not an issue of just having the government write the check. It is a complex industry with highly skilled workers and teams of researchers trying to progress in and ever evolving system. You are oversimplifying the issue.
    1
  31. Black Dream, 1. Companies do it their own polls where they are polling people who experienced that system. Is it 100% reliable? No as it involves people who may only experience their system. But in a free market with competing companies consumers can experience different systems and compare. Many in Canada never experienced the US system, so they can't compare. And many Canada, as in the US, never had a bad experience as they do not face major problems. Coloradocare is a mark against universal healthcare. You said it was complex. Well, healthcare is complex. It is a nearly four trillion dollar industry with highly educated workers and advanced equipment and involves people's emotions. That is not an easy issue to tackle. My number one beef with people pushing for single payer is they feel if we allow the federal government, or any government to fund healthcare then things will be all better, as if it were that simple. It isn't. And you mentioned lobbying, again, this is a nearly four trillion dollar industry. The lobbying and corruption in healthcare will be huge if more government had a hand in it. 2. The individual mandate was essentially a higher tax. Paying for healthcare out of pocket or paying a higher tax are the same. The reason why people oppose universal healthcare in Colorado was because of the tax attached to it. 3. What is the quality of their healthcare? $15,000 a year is not much in the big picture. In Denmark around 50% of all revenue is taxed. If I earn $60,000 and have $15,000 taken out for healthcare insurance, I would take that over $30,000. But besides that, I feel the main problem with healthcare is that insurance has become care. I agree insurance is too much, but the reason why is because employers pay employees with healthcare insurance. Consumers cannot force companies to compete and they cannot pay for a plan they want. As for the private sector. A lot of R&D comes from there. With government you have bureaucracy and a collection of government employees who cannot get a job elsewhere. You get public unions that care more about their pay as opposed to the quality of work. See teacher unions for example. With the private sector consumers can force companies to compete. Insurance companies will have to compete in order to retain customers. They have to cater to customers with individual plans and insurance can be insurance that covers only expensive, unplanned events. " Also, consider the burden on small businesses. Elimination of these expenses would promote small business growth. " Eliminate the payroll tax will do that. The main reason why employers offer insurance is because it is a tax free way to pay employees. 4. Insurance companies are a company, they need a profit as well. Medical providers need money for research. They all have to profit. Also, insurance companies do research such as disease awareness for customers and fraud prevention. "Again, what does this have to do with the profit motive of health insurance companies?" One company makes profits, so does another one. Insurance companies push to reduce healthcare costs with negotiation because they have to profit. The government with no profit motive will just raise the debt ceiling. Healthcare providers need to profit for many reasons, including R&D. It is two groups fighting to expand their bottom line. The problem is that the consumer, the person actually receiving healthcare, has no say in the negotiation process. They cannot pick their plan as they are restricted to what their employer offers. Thus insurance companies can charge higher prices leading to healthcare providers charging higher prices.
    1
  32. Bernie's response: "Millionaires and billionaires, and rich people have too much money, and we need to give people free shit because I want your vote!". This guy is an idiot.
    1
  33. "says the moron who thinks making tuition zero with cause tuition to go up despite it being zero." There is no such thing as a free lunch. No matter what tuition will never be zero.
    1
  34. "Dude don't feed the paid troll." Definition of a Troll: Someone I disagree with. I can go point by point on what Bernie said and show why he is wrong. Fact is Bernie is a nut. A career politician that will say what he wants to get votes and then will bow down to the democrats.
    1
  35. G1478, and that's fine. But then you increase demand which will mean universities will raise prices.
    1
  36. "unless you do like NHS or germany or canada on negotiating the prices of education" If you force prices to go down universities will just lower the quality. You will have classrooms packed with students, limited office hours, limited tutors, poor services, etc. Just look at our public schools and compare them to our colleges on appearance alone. Almost every university I have been on is beautiful. Most public schools I go to are disorganized and a mess. It isn't just the price tag that can change but the quality. You look at healthcare where in those countries they pay with less R&D and longer wait times.
    1
  37. "California already does this with community colleges, and it's the best higher ed system in the country. So no." I actually go to many CA community and JCs. They are not that great and are in fact some of the ugliest colleges I have been to. As for "best higher ed", what is that based on? Also, that is skewed by colleges such as Davis, Stanford, and Berkeley which are not community colleges.
    1
  38. "hey a politician saying what he wants to get votes.. wait .. how do you get votes :P" Creating an environment that benefits the people. That is one way. "point by point? no 1 would agree :P .. and most points you and he has been repeating in this dam YT section over and over again with GWS is gonna go nowhere unless we either see germany and norway and sweden and canada fail in education, health, prison, weed, guns, etc.. lets see in 5 yrs on how these things goes on everywhere :D" Uh, there are many variables that influence what goes on in those countries. I have shown many sources showing how Canada's healthcare system is not great. It is not terrible, but not the amazing system many on the left, including Bernie, make it out to be. "studies on effects of climate change can be ignored being a peer-reviewed researched topic which none of us without evidence can say proper stuff.. better to write in nature magazine to refute it ;)" What are you talking about?
    1
  39. "But I'm wondering if your against everything Burnie says you think we should put more money in politics? " Money in politics is just a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power and less state rights. If the federal government had limited power it would have nothing to sale. With Bernie's plan of centralized healthcare and college and more federal government future politicians will become corrupt. What is going to stop future politicians from taking money from big donors from healthcare providers now that they control your healthcare? I want to attack the source of the problem, not the symptom.
    1
  40. G1478, what facts do you want on CA?
    1
  41. "Nice anecdote there, Razorfist. But all the facts state otherwise." What facts? You saying "facts" but not providing any is not an argument. Is my example anecdotal? Yes, but it is more than you have provided. "You clearly don't understand what I said." What were you saying? You said that CA excels in academics, but you pointed to CC's in doing so. I am pointing at major institutions. " Either that or you literally care about aesthetics and not academic facts." Again, what facts? You have yet to provide any.
    1
  42. "You don't attend "many" CA community colleges in a span of 2-3 years, you go to one, two at most." When I say "attend" I say I visit due to one of my jobs has me visiting them. It isn't me attending them, it me being on their property and seeing their buildings, rooms facilities, etc. "I also happened to go to a c ommunity college for two years and anyone knows how good your education is is dependent on which professor you are taking, not the entire college or university as a whole. " I agree for the most part. And I will say I feel that CC's are much better and educating students than larger 4 year colleges due to smaller classrooms and professors being there to teach as opposed to doing research. But that is common all across the nation. The CC's in my state are praised by many students as being that way. So say that CA excels and others don't is based off of zero evidence.
    1
  43. "how CA 's community college which are public funded - are shit.. :P" CC's, as a whole, have lower achieving students. Now are they "shit" academically, I would say no. However, I am going off of appearance and to me they look like crap. Is that subjective? Yes. But when I see a classroom with a warped floor and dim lights, I question how good they really are.
    1
  44. Even at that, I actually support states funding for 2 years colleges in JC and CC as long as it is funded at the state level. So as a whole this topic is irrelevant to what Bernie wants. Bernie wants the federal government to fund all colleges, including 4 year colleges. That is way too extreme. I have no problem with states doing it at the state level as a part of my support for state rights.
    1
  45. " What I was saying was California's higher ed system (which is divided into three parts btw) is the largest in the world" Ok, and? Being large does not mean success. CA is a big state. " and the community college system is the one with the highest rate of transfer to universities, " I would like to see evidence for that. Not saying it isn't true, I would just like to see evidence. " Not a "failure" by any means." Never said it was a failure. I just said their appearance is poor. Some aren't. Delta college is beautiful in some ways with that little pond with fishes in the middle. But as a whole they do not look nice. Even at that I actually support state funding for 2 year colleges. But here is the key. One, it is at the state level. Next, it is for 2 year colleges like CC and JC. That is drastically different than 4 year colleges being funded federally. "The California Community College system is a major reason for the success of the California Higher Ed system." How are they successful? I know this is anecdotal, but knowing several people from CA they tell me how bad the CA system is which is why they moved out. I have been to many calstate and UC schools and one of my friends works at UC Bakersfield. I went there and was not impressed.
    1
  46. "What's your job? Sphincter inspector at the gym?" One of my jobs is a sports official. Several colleges in CA have sports teams. "Seriously, why do all these anonymous, anecdotal conservatards always have "jobs" that give them special insight that flies in the face of reality?" I cannot speak for them, but I do have a job that has be visiting those colleges. If you read my comments I described Delta college in California as in the fish in the little pond they have. American River College in CA is by a Chick fil a. I know about these colleges. "Also, protip, if you're going to talk about something, at least google or Wikipedia it. " Google what? Fox News? Saying "google it" is not an argument. "The California Master Plan system is the largest higher education system in the entire planet" So, CA is a large state. What is your point?
    1
  47. Jonathan, remember, you are the one who claimed that if I were to get hit by bus today it was because I had poor healthcare. As for productivity http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/ OECD stats. "Have to go back to studying but just wanted to comment on the post because I know pink will provide no evidence, argue anecdotally, and then mention productivity even though many nations we are behind are still higher in productivity." Funny, I just posted a link to counter your link. Even at that, you say we are 6th, that is still very high.
    1
  48. Jonathan, I bet you once again when I reply to you you will run away "None of the evidence points to school systems that are public being poor, especially when looking at the vast majority of European nations when comparing education. I can literally break down his argument and preemptively respond to his talking points" Oh goody, this will be fun coming form a guy who cannot find peer reviewed papers related to healthcare when we debate that topic. "The US funds schools locally k-12 which means many students have a variety of different educations due to lack of funding or high amounts of funding. That is if you live in a poor area, you tend to have a terrible education. If you live in a rich area, you tend to have a drastically high education. " I work in the education system as a substitute and I studied it for 2 years at one point when I considered being a teacher. Here is the reality. Yes, schools are funded locally. However, the federal government funds Title I schools that are in poorer neighborhoods to make up for the gap. In many cases they have access to better resources such as Ipads and smart boards. In major cities there is a problem of lack of funding for many schools, but major cities like New York and LA have limited resources in almost everything. We see that especially in healthcare. Also, in "rich areas" you have two factors. One is more donors, and two are better parents all around. A big factor in education is parenting. You can have the best teachers in the world with the most resources. If the parents do not take action it does not matter. You have to factor that in as well. Private schools do very well but a very fair argument is that people to send their kids to private schools are rich to begin with and are better parents. I bet you will agree to that argument on private schools. But now all of a sudden you turn around an look at funding when it comes to public schools? It shows inconsistency of the arguments from the left. "However lets compare it to a global scale, when looking at nations that have only federally funded systems, in comparison to ours, where do we stand? " How many of those nations have 100+ million people? That is the issue. The main argument for state funded education is that you have to keep government localized in order to control it. Also, it leads to competition as you have 50 states competing to be number 1. Having a centralized system is telling many successful states to regress to the norm. But again, you are comparing nations of 5 million people or so to the US. Even Sir Ken Robinson said that is an unfair comparison when he was looking at Finland's education (who does many things very well). So your comparison is flawed. You cannot compare the US to nations of small size. Now you may say I did in my earlier comments, and I will agree. But others insisted on doing so thus I went along to show that the US has arguably the best education system in the world. As one of my professors in education said, he can easily make that argument based on our size and diversity of the US alone. Also, you are comparing funding of different countries where funding occurs in various ways. That is hard to compare. If you were really a doctor these are the points you will be making but you fail to do. This is why I question your credentials. "Basically when you demonstrate that our country pales in comparison overall to other nations, he tends to bring up productivity as if our education(or lack of) causes our nation to be a high productive nation. Even though productivity has nothing to do with education since " Based on this statement "Even though productivity has nothing to do with education" You are literally arguing against government funded education especially government funded college education. The main argument for government funded college education is to have a more educated, and thus productive society. But now you are saying there is zero correlation with education and productivity. So what gives? Also, read the report on "Skilled Biased Technological Change". There they bring up the fact that more skilled workers are earning more. You also have to consider there is a correlation between educational attainment and income. And there is a correlation between income and productivity. Fact is there is a strong correlation between education and productivity. Is it exactly 1 to 1? No as there is a lot to it. But one exists. You saying productivity has nothing to do with education makes it very hard to take your comments seriously. I can accept mistakes here and there, but that remark is very telling of your knowledge. Consider this. Someone educated in computational skills can program a computer to be far more efficient. That alone shows how a higher education correlates with higher productivity. "Again he has no evidence to actually demonstrate that our system is doing better, in fact there is loads of evidence demonstrating that our system is doing far worse." Such as? "btw the california system is a power house in the public sector UCLA UCSD UC Berkley UC Davis Cal State SD Cal State San Luis Obispo" Those schools do very well, I agreed to that. But there are many schools in CA that are poor. Also, CA has so many schools due its size. TX has many schools that do well with the A&M school, Texas Tech, Rice, Baylor, etc. That is because is so large. Compare that Arizona which is small but has one of the best astronomy programs in the nation. MIT is strong, but Massachusetts is a small state. CA has many schools that are average with Bakersfield, Northridge, Fullerton, etc. You have to consider that as well. But again you fail to look at other variables. "If you mean locally funded high schools or some CC's, congratulations, that actually demonstrates why our system should be completely federal." The CA school system is local. What's your point? " Thank you for pointing out the reason why we should go federal and supporting our argument. " Why fund for schooling at all? It has nothing to do with productivity according to you. Also, again, schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley are funded locally. You are contradicting yourself.
    1
  49. Jonathan, thanks for this comment. You gave me another reason to bash you on. This time it was you saying education had nothing to do with productivity. I guess we should stop wasting funds on public education as it does nothing to make us a more productive society.
    1
  50. Jonathan, here is the list of your fallacies, 1. You could not read and understand the Coloradocare bill 2. You alluded to that if I were to get in a car accident and die immediately it was because I had poor healthcare 3. You claim to be a doctor but when we discuss healthcare I am able to find peer reviewed papers on healthcare and you post from the CommonWealthFund, and claim that ranking is peer reviewed when it isn't 4. Now you claim education has nothing to do with productivity despite the plethora of evidence that says otherwise I can think of more, but this is a good list, enjoy your "studying".
    1
  51. "total output / total input.(which also becomes difficult since many jobs, it becomes hard to see total output)" I can comment on that as well. One measure of "output" is the bottom line, profit. So it not as difficult as you may think. For individual cases it may be if you employ hundreds of workers. That is why in that case they earn around the same wage. But as a whole measuring productivity is not challenging. Profits is the measure. It would behoove you to take an economics course as well. I bet you have no clue what "input" and "output" you are even talking about.
    1
  52. Jonathan, I did counter what you said. I suggest you read my other comments. Yes, productivity rankings vary due to several reasons. The US is still near the top, at least in the top 10. "However the high productivity was never being argued, if you didn't understand why that was brought up, read my post slowly. That was a counter-argument to the point you constantly bring up which has nothing to do with which country overall has a better education which you bring up constantly. I was demonstrating our overall poor education in comparison to most modern nations." You said there was no relationship between education and productivity which is 100% not true. There is a strong relationship. "Read slowly if you don't understand. " I did, I even quoted you. "don't have much time to waste on someone who doesn't understand simple economics, statistics or overall studies. " Funny considering how I am the one taking an economics course right now, have a math minor, published three peer reviewed papers and reads actual studies.
    1
  53. Jonathan, please explain how education is not connect to productivity.
    1
  54. And I bet, Jonathan, you will not respond to my basic question, that is Why is there no connection between education and productivity? And you claim I do not know anything basic.
    1
  55. "Yeah that extra hundred dollars will really go fa in a country with increasing inflation." So how is Bernie going to pay for his free shit with increasing inflation?
    1
  56. Oliver Hancock, just because the rich save in stocks and banks does not mean the money just sits there. Money in banks are loaned out people to invest in businesses, cars, homes, etc. Banks, by law, can't keep more than 10% of the money that people give them. Banks have to loan out 90% of that money. Stocks are used to invest in the company to grow it. As for this statement "It is part of the reason areas with high wealth and income inequality have slower economic growth rates." What do you base that off of?
    1