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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Lashes Out At The Senate Over Bloated Mílítary Budget" video.

Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. Our social welfare programs are much higher.
4
Federal taxes do fund federals spending. Look up the Federal Reserve and what it does.
4
The Fed controls the money supply in the US. MMT is horse crap made up by people who just wanted attention. The federal government does not control the money supply, the Fed does. Please learn basic economics.
3
Congress sets the budget. If they cannot raise enough tax revenue they......wait for it.......increase the debt. The Fed controls the money supply.
3
Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. Healthcare is 1/6 of GDP. It is called math.
2
Adam Sinclair, the Fed controls the monetary supply. That is why MMT is dumb. The federal government cannot give money to people or banks, the Fed does that. The Fed exists to prevent a government from just giving people money at will to buy votes.
2
Strikewing, GDP is the standard to go off of. What else would you go off of? If our tax revenue in proportion of GDP was going down as well then maybe you would have a point. But that has been between 15 to 20 percent for years. So our tax revenue has been around the same for decades while our defense spending dropped from 10% of GDP to around 4%. You know what that means? It means we are bringing in the same amount of tax revenue while spending less on military.
2
Bernie is pretty much a joke at capital hill. This video is a reflection of that. He rants about healthcare as a right where healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Defense spending is around 4% of GDP, healthcare is close to 20% of our GDP. Comparing the increase in defense spending to the cost of healthcare is as asinine as it gets. When you have someone who makes asinine comparisons like that you cannot take them seriously.
2
Freedom For Thought, it is the radical left viewpoint. I watch radicals, and comment with people here to learn more about the issues.
2
MMT is literally watered down Keynesian economics.
2
Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. For years defense spending has been dropping. There are times we have to increase it.
1
Cannigirl99, I did. Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. Social Security alone is around 5%.
1
JumpimJimmie, GDP is 100% relevant. I is the standard to compare cost. Defense spending is less than 4% of GDP. Healthcare is close to 5 times that. It is called 2nd grade math. Also, universal healthcare would not save $17 trillion Prof. Jonathan Gruber. As for us getting some of the worse outcomes in healthcare, that is not true. I have done the research. I have numerous sources for you to look at. Your knowledge of healthcare is very poor. As for common sense. One, this is not "common sense" as there is an argument to begin with. But, basic economics will tell you that when you increase demand without increasing supply costs will go up.
1
JumpinJimmie, I have seen the report where it says it will save $17 trillion. Tell me, how did they get that number? Have you even read the methods? I know you didn't. I have. The number is flawed. It would behoove you to do this thing called research. Maybe you've heard of it.
1
JumpinJimmie, GDP is relevant because the vast majority of those cost are not going to go away. Government picking up the tab is not going to reduce what is 17% of GDP down to less than 4%. There is arguably more overhead in medicare. The testing of cutting edge drugs is 100% necessary. Healthcare is very dynamic with the need for new drugs for evolving diseases and situations that still have no cure. Healthcare has many regulations which is why it is so expensive to begin with. The reason why the cost is so high is because healthcare is not a free market system, it has many regulations. I have seen many sources on the subject and I see little evidence to suggest that healthcare cost will drop if we go to a single payer system. I read the report. One had a number of $32 trillion that used many variables to find that number but also left out many variables such as increases in demand where they admitted that $32 trillion was an underestimate. The report for $49 trillion just looked at current cost and the trend and made the assumption the trend in healthcare cost was going to stay the same for the next 10 years. Way too simplified. But also, the $49 trillion and $32 trillion were found with completely different methods. That ranking that made the US last is arbitrary. All healthcare rankings are arbitrary as anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and have any country be number 1, including the US. The US offers more advanced care such as CT scans. The US is number 1in cancer survival rate and number 1 in life expectancy when you remove car accidents and murders. Those are factors that simplified ranking does not include.
1
JumpinJImmie, read the book "The Business of Health" By Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider and the masters thesis "How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive" by Mike Holly
1
Joshua, you won't get Kyle's opinion on it. If you do he would simply support 1. Higher taxes on the rich 2. More government spending 3. Cutting defense spending In the end Kyle has no clue what he is talking about on economic and government finance issues. That is why he never debates anyone.
1
I wonder as well. He is trying to attract a far left crowd and get views. So maybe he does know what he is talking about but presents data in a false way to gain views and money. If that is the case than he lacks morals in that point.
1
Bernie is a politician. I am sure he knows what debt means, but by the way he talks I do wonder about his intelligence. His entire rant was pointless. He asked about providing healthcare to everyone when healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. Defense spending is 4% of GDP. Cutting defense spending to zero would not come close to funding healthcare for all. Bernie is simply making an appeal to emotion argument in his rant where the facts and data do not support his ideas. That is why people consider Bernie to be a joke. Also, MMT is a joke.
1
Adam Sinclair, even if you reduced healthcare cost by 30% by removing profits it would close to $3 trillion. The fact you do not understand very basic math makes you unfit for this conversation. What is larger, $700 billion or $3 trillion. And yes, MMT is a joke. The federal government does not control the money supply, the Federal Reserve does.
1
Adam Sinclair, there is a reason why no one talks about MMT. It is a joke.
1
Adam Sinclair, government does not control the money supply, Fed does. Government does not use taxes to control inflation, the Fed does with interest rates. That is why MMT is a joke.
1
Adam Sinclair, congress controls spending but not the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Fed. If congress does not have enough money via taxes they increase the debt ceiling. Yes, congress has power of the purse, including the credit card.
1
Congress does not control the money supply.
1
The Fed controls the money supply, period. Please learn economics.
1
Adam, taxes fund the federal government. The Fed controls the money supply. That is why the federal government goes into debt. MMT is a joke.
1
Congress does not control the Fed. The Fed can do pretty much what they want without the Congress consent. The Fed was designed to be independent within government. It can do what it wants, to a degree, without politicians having control. The reason was because if politicians control the money supply and interest rates they will push out a lot of money during times of re-election to win elections with no care for long term effects in the economy. The Fed will do what is necessary to keep the economy going strong. For example, Carter promoted Volcker as chairman and Volcker raised interest rates to stop hyperinflation. He said that for the short term things will be hard, but in the long run things will improve. In the short term unemployment was high and the economy sucked and it cost Carter the presidency. In the long run the economy was strong. If Carter and congress had control they would have keep rates low and pushed a lot of money out which is called easy monetary policy. It would have grown the economy in the short run, but been terrible in the long run. But Carter would have won the presidency. That is why the Fed is independent within government. Also, the Fed does not give congress a dime. The Fed control the money supply by buying and selling securities with banks.
1
If Congress wants $3 trillion they have to get it from taxes.
1
Adam Sinclair, Congress cannot dissolve the Fed. The Fed is independent from government with the exception of a few extreme cases. The Fed cannot fire the Governors without major criticism and consequences. The Fed is a private entity. You know, I took a course recently where we studied the Fed. MMT is garbage. Comparing our financial system to a game is asinine. Inflation is controlled by interest rates, not taxes. The Fed controls the money supply, not congress. That is why only a handful of economists even acknowledge MMT. All the other economists know it is garbage. The fact you have no clue how the Fed works shows that.
1
You said the Fed gives congress money. That is not how it works. The Fed gives other banks money by buying securities. Congress gets money through taxes. Can Congress dissolve the Fed? If you want to split hairs they can. Just like Congress can bomb the shit out of France if they want to. Will they? No. Again, MMT is a joke. You felt that the Fed can give Congress $3 trillion. They can't, period. MMT says taxes control inflation, that is false. Interest rates set by the Fed does. That is why MMT is not taught at almost every university. It is not how the economy works, period.
1
Adam, again, you have no clue how the Fed works. If you cannot get basic facts straight than you are not fit to discuss economics.
1
Adam Sinclair, congress can coin money, but that's it. Prior to 1863 the US dollar was not the sole currency in the US. There were multiple forms of coinage floating around. It was mostly tied to gold but the US dollar was not the uniform currency for almost 100 years. The power to print coin involved foreign trade, not domestic trade. Even with that printing money does not add value to it. You can print millions of dollars but what controls the money supply is the Fed through the banks. The banks do not have to accept the dollars that were printed. The Fed is a private entity where the chair and governors are picked by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Every president typically keeps the previous Fed chair and governors, including Trump. The reason why is because government is supposed to be hands off of the Fed. Can the federal government come in and clean house? Yes. But that is highly discouraged and will cause huge problems in the economy. Banks would no longer trust the Fed as now government has more control and will no longer accept securities from the Fed as they would be worthless. If congress needs money they have to tax, period. If they do not generate enough tax revenue they go in debt. Now read carefully......The Fed DOES NOT give money to Congress, period. End of story. This is a very basic fact that you do not know which is why MMT is a joke. If you are learning through MMT that the Fed gives congress money than I can see why I have never heard of it in all my time studying economics, and having economic discussions with my uncle who has an PhD in it, and my sister who has a degree it in. I only heard of MMT on Youtube.
1
Now, with healthcare. Say you are correct (you aren't, but I can play your silly economic illiterate game), and the Fed can give Congress $3 trillion. That would cause massive inflation ruining out economy. Also, having more money does not increase the supply of doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, etc. You are making this sound like a magic trick which is, again, why MMT is a joke. That is not how the economy works. More money does not mean more goods and services. Through your idea all you have done is create massive inflation and now people are worse off.
1
Watch the Learn Liberty video entitled "Why Not Print More Money?" If we just created money out of thin air you debase the currency. You devalue the dollar which causes inflation. More money does not mean more goods and services. That is a very basic concept in economics.
1
Adam, also watch the eEconomics video entitled "The Trillion Dollar Coin" I mean, why does congress have to go through the Fed? Why not put "$1 trillion" on a paper plate and use it to fund healthcare?
1
Adam Sinclair, Congress just can't raise taxes as doing so would mean less votes. As for taxing the rich, you can take every penny they have and you would not be able to pay for "free healthcare". Even Bernie won't deny that which is why when an individual from Denmark pushed Bernie into a corner Bernie admitted you will have to raise taxes on everyone. That is a very unpopular opinion. Taxes do pay for things, period. There is no argument there unless you want to bring up debt. What controls inflation is interest rates. That is what Volcker did. That is what the Fed is doing now as the economy works. The Fed is independent of congress. It does not work for congress. It is designed to do what is necessary for long term economic growth that is stable. That is why it is independent from government. Politicians will just spend to buy votes and not care about long term economic effects. That is why the Fed is independent from government. You have zero understanding of how the economy works. MMT is a joke. Money is not create out of thin air. Please study actual economics. MMT is a complete joke. That is why only a handful of economists even respect it. Others ignore it all together.
1
Adam Sinclair, also, you keep changing your story. First you said that Congress can just get $3 trillion from the Fed. Then you said Congress can just print money. Then you said that the Fed gives money to congress through banks after I told you that the Fed does not give money to Congress but gives money to banks by buying securities. Drop MMT, learn actual economics.
1
Adam Sinclair, I know exactly how fiat currency works. Read Paul Krugman's blog on MMT. Paul Krugman basically called MMT an over simplified version of Keynesian economics. That is why no one teaches it.
1
Adam Sinclair, Paul Krugman has an opinion piece on MMT entitled "MMT, Again". You should read it. He discusses hyperinflation and how tax revenue funds the government. You can't just create money out of thin air. That causes inflation. You do it too much that causes hyperinflation. That is why you cannot just create $3 trillion out of thin air and pay for healthcare for all. Why? Because that new money does not increase the number of doctors, nurses, equipment, resources, etc. needed for healthcare. Again, watch the Learn Liberty video I pointed to you about money. I know exactly how fiat currency works, apparently you don't.
1
Adam Sinclair, this is not to be rude, but your understanding of economics is very poor.
1
Adam Sinclair, I watched your video and there are several things wrong with it. To start, the federal government does not have to be the only issuer or currency. We can create our own currency. We don't because over time society has accepted the simple way of accepting the federal government's currency. Having money removes two problems in economics 1. The double incident of wants problem 2. The retention of value problem We do not have to accept government's currency, and we can trade without it. It happens all the time in volunteer work for example. Next, at around the 1:40 mark it has a little cartoon that shows a flying man dumping money on a rocket and having it blast off, and dumping money to create a road. Here is the problem with that. The government can spend billions and trillions of dollars, but if there is no one to run that rocket or build that road, it won't happen. It later berated politicians as if they do not understand economics. That is false. Our debt is from numerous sources and not just China. So this video is wrong there. The idea that money being "stashed away" is bad is wrong as well. Money saved in banks are loaned out. Banks, by Fed rule, have to loan out 90% of what they take in. They can only keep around 10% of what people save. It is referred to at the "inverted pyramid". Someone puts $100 in the bank, the bank loans out $90 who spends it at a company. That company puts that $90 in a bank and that bank loans out $81 for someone to spend and so on. That grows the economy with spending and interest gain. If sales fall the Fed lowers interest rates so people borrow more and spend more. That is why during the recession interest rates were almost 0%. If sales are too high the Fed raises interest rates so people save more and pull out less loans. This idea government controlling inflation with taxes is false.
1
Adam Sinclair, if government spends money to create new schools, and no one wants to teach, what does the government do? Does it magically create teachers as well? Also, another point that video got wrong is that the federal government does not fund the police, local governments do. Local governments also fund K-12 education. But I ask again, if the government spends money to "afford" education, and no one is willing to teach, how does government provide education to people? That is why when that little cartoon said "government can afford everything!", I just shook my head and realized how economically illiterate it was. If the goods and services do not exist it does not matter how much money you have.
1
Taxes fund the government. Inflation is controlled by the Fed. I looked deeper into your little video and there are many red flags. They make a claim that there are many "scholars" who have written on MMT but did not list a single one to look to. Thus they are relying on me to simply look up information with zero guidance. That can lead me to other sources that tear apart MMT. The fact they do not cite any of those "scholars" is a major red flag.
1
Adam Sinclair, I said a lot. You feel that the Fed can just give money to Congress. When I told you that is not true you changed your tone and said they give it to banks (after I told you that is what they do) and the banks give it to congress. I asked you a simple question on what if no one wants to teach? How does the government offer education to people? The end of your video said that is what the government's role is, to offer there services like education and security to people. What if no one wants to do those jobs?
1
Adam Sinclair, another problem you are ignoring is why inflation exist to begin with? It exist because people have the mentality of wanting raises. They want higher wages. So you say we need to increase taxes to control inflation. So why doesn't the people just vote out politicians to keep taxes low? This is tied back to why the Fed is independent of government. The Fed can change the money supply and interest rates to change consumer spending and not worry about people voting them out. Congress does not have that power as people can vote them in. I have addressed a lot and you keep going back to the same point. That is the federal government can just print money and magically the services appear. It isn't that simple.
1
Adam Smith, I will ask this question again. How does getting $3 trillion from the Fed to pay for healthcare to all increase the number of doctors, nurses, resources, etc. in healthcare? Putting more money into it does not increase the supply. How do you account for that? Contrary to what the video says there is not fly man dropping money and things magically appear. Someone has to provide those goods and services. I disproved everything you say. How about you counter what I say for once.
1
Adam Sinclair, you missed the point. Even if government funds college to train them, what if no one wants to do it? That is my question. The government can dump a ton of money into the system, but if no one wants to do it, then what? Also, no, the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund K-12 education and police. It isn't so much about paying people enough to do it. Many simply can't. Many simply do not want to do the work. I am getting my PhD right now. I put in over 60 hours a week at work. How many people want to do that? Many want their free time, hobbies, and raise families. McDonalds could not afford to pay $100K a year because that would mean higher prices on food. That means less customers. But back to your point of paying people enough. Doctors are paid very well. We still lack doctors. The money is there, people just don't want to do it. Why? Explain that. And I will ask again, if no one wants to be a doctor, or teacher, or nurse, or work construction, etc., how does the government provide those things? You say spend more money, at that point you have hyperinflation.
1
That is not how capitalism works. If there is no profit of some kind to be made than a company goes under. If the federal government were to spend more to attract more teachers, and the people they educate are not more productive, you have just wasted money. So now you are operating at a lost. Oh, that's right. According to you government cannot run out of money, so it will create more which causes inflation. Teachers are paid more, so they spend more, which causes inflation. But you say you can just raise taxes. So you are raising taxes on all to compensate for the fact that you are giving teachers an arbitrarily amount of money. So someone who is working a low skilled job with a low wage is no paying higher taxes because of you. But that aside, again, I ask, what if no one wants to be a teacher? I will go back to the doctor comparison. Doctors are paid well but we lack doctors. Many people do not want to become doctors no matter what the pay, same with teachers. Many do not want to become teachers despite the pay. So what if we do not have enough teachers? The federal government does not fund police. It is 100% local. The fact you do not know this exposes, once again, you lack of knowledge in economics. 84% of funding for education is state and local, 8% is private, 8% is federal. Again, facts. Doctors are paid well. Money has nothing to do with our shortage of doctors. Med schools have a less than 50% acceptance rate. It has everything to do with lack of ability and desire. Doctors are paid well. Primary care physicians are paid well. They are paid lower than specialist because of skills. To answer you question in how the private sector does it? It is simple. Limited supply means higher prices. That is why many are not covered in healthcare. In other countries they lower the quality. That is how. Again, taxes do not prevent inflation.
1
You don't understand the point of my question because you literally fell the government has some magic flying man who goes around dropping money and things magically appear. That is not how it works. Why doesn't the government print out trillions of dollars and we can have teleportation? Answer that.
1
Adam Sinclair, your viewpoint on economics is at a middle school level at best. You are completely wrong on the Fed. You are completely wrong on how police and schools are funded. You feel government can just create money and things can magically appear. And if they don't appear it can print more. I will ask this. Say no one wants to work. What do you do then? As a government do you just let them starve? Do you let them die? How do you provide for people if people do not want to work?
1
Adam Sinclair, wealth does not equal income. Wealth is assets. If you do not understand the difference between wealth and income you should not be discussing economics. The top 1% own 80% of the wealth for two main reasons 1. They are the largest shareholders of major companies 2. Many people, like me, have negative wealth due to loans but are fine. Bezos is worth billions in wealth, but earns only $80,000 a year. Again, learn the difference between wealth and income if you are going to discuss economics.
1
Adam Sinclair, local government funds the police. The Federal government does not. 8% of the education budget is nothing. Most education spending at the federal level goes to Title I schools. Many schools do not receive a dime. Again, learn basic facts if you want to be taken seriously.
1
Adam Sinclair, ever thought teleportation is not around because the federal government did not spend enough money? According to you the government has a magic flying man to create what they want. Also, according to you, politicians are stupid.
1
Adam Sinclair, it wasn't obvious to you as you are talking about taxes. You said that if the government were to inject $3 trillion into the economy it will have to tax $3 trillion out. You then said that the top 1% own 80% of the wealth and they are the only ones with enough to tax to tax that much out. You are saying that wealth equals income at that point.
1
Adam Sinclair, the federal government does not pay teacher salaries with the exception of student loan forgiveness. That 8% goes into resources like free good, smart boards, iPads, etc. Teachers are not paid through federal dollars and 8%, in the grand total, is small. You can remove that 8% and since most go to title I schools to give them extra resources that other schools do not possess (like iPads) education will still function. You did say that. You are saying politicians are stupid and government has a magic wand. That they can magically create resources out of thin air. Sure, I can admit teleportation was an extreme case, but I will go back to teachers, doctors, construction workers, etc. What if no one is there to work in those fields? What does the government do to provide those programs to the people? If the resources are not there the government cannot do anything. That is why when the video you showed me said that government can afford infrastructure, education, etc. they are completely wrong. It isn't about the money, it is the reality that resources are limited. No amount of money is going to magically create more teachers and construction workers just like it will not create teleportation. You cannot consume what you don't produce. The farther this goes the more I see that MMT is a complete joke. I can see why it is not taught anywhere.
1
Adam Sinclair, to tax wealth you have to literally take property away. Why? Because wealth does not equal income. As I said, Bezos earns $80,000 a year. That means you have to take away parts of his company as he would not have enough money. Also, I laid out why we have wealth inequality. Many, including me, go into debt to buy big purchases such as a home or a college education. That is not a bad thing.
1
Adam Sinclair, you have no clue how fiat currency works. If you put too much money in the economy than the value goes down. Also, you have to worry about the international market as well. If other countries do not value our money foreign trade becomes a problem. MMT completely ignores that. What MMT also ignores are the banks. The banks do not have to accept the currency. If the government is just going to push money out there than banks will not accept them as the money is worthless. Resources are an issue in healthcare. We have a waiting lists for organs. Resources are limited everywhere. That is why you have around 7000 people dying a year in Australia on waiting lists for "elective" surgery. Also, you are running into the major problem is inflation. If you say to all citizens that you are going to offer healthcare to all then providers will simply increase the prices. Government will have to pay because if they don't healthcare providers will refuse services. You can then say you are going to tax the doctors to control inflation to where at that point people will stop being doctors. You are forcing them to work for free at that point. You say we do not lack the people. We do. Again, medical schools have a less than 50% acceptance rate. People simply do not have the ability to become doctors. Many that do simply do not want to. And again, on offering money, how much are you willing to go? And how will you control inflation? Who will you tax? When you subsidize something the price always goes up. The student loan program increased the cost of tuition because you increased demand without increasing supply. So who do you tax? The rich? They will just leave or stop working. MMT is a joke. You have not countered anything you said. All you said was "we can increase doctors' pay". Ok, what if doctors charge $1,000,000 for a routine check up? Then what? Also, it is debatable. That is why Paul Krugman does not accept it. That is why the vast majority of economists do not accept it. You have no idea how the Fed works. You have no idea about supply and demand. You completely ignore international trade.
1
Adam Sinclair, again, most economists do not accept MMT, including Paul Krugman. If it is something someone cannot refute, than why do many economists do not accept it? Also, what you are literally supporting is slavery towards the government. You are saying the government pays people and then takes that same money in order to control inflation. And answer this, why does the Fed set interest rates? Why did Volcker raise interest rates to control inflation? You are ignoring that as well. Again, MMT is a complete joke. Everything I said refutes MMT. Just because you do not understand very basic facts, like how the Fed DOES NOT give money to Congress, does not make MMT legit. It makes it a joke.
1
For the past 50 years defense spending has been dropping as a percent of GDP. We have settled around 4% now. For years under Obama defense spending has been stagnate. Now it is time to increase it. It is the value of the two party system. One party keeps it stagnate, the other increases it. Since 1990 it has been around 3 to 5 percent of GDP because of that. It is a healthy balance in the end.
1
StrikeWing, In the mid 1980s defense spending was over 30% of federal spending. Now it is closer to 20%.
1
Education and healthcare cost more than defense. That's why.
1
What caused the crash were lot interest rates by the Fed following the recession of 2001. Inflation and housing prices were going up but the Fed kept interest rates too low, thus a bubble was created. Obama did not fix the economy. Things were stagnate under him.
1
Neeraj Kumar, the Glass Steagal repeal did not cause the recession. Even Elizabeth Warren admits to that. There have been many economists who looked into it and said that if the Glass Steagal repeal did cause the recession it was just one minor factor at best.
1
Read the politifact article "Bill Clinton: Glass-Steagall repeal had nothing to do with the financial crisis"
1
Jonathan C., a national healthcare program would cost more. You would be increase demand without increasing supply. It makes zero economic sense to say it would be cheaper. Most people in the US are sick due to bad health habits like diet. Over 40% of our food dollar is spent eating out. Other countries have that at around 20%.
1
Teagan, that does not include increases in demand. I have read the studies showing how the numbers were produced.
1
Teagan, it does not include in increases in demand. I have read the reports. Also, you cannot predict increases in demand either as you cannot predict individuals' habits. Also, what is going to prevent healthcare providers from just jacking up the costs? When the student loan program increased demand college tuition went up in price by a lot. What makes you think that won't happen in healthcare? The government would have no negotiating power in this case as if they do not pay for the price the citizens do not get healthcare. So the government has to pay for the high price.
1
Jonathan C., a major reason why people are not healthy in the US is because of our poor diet. We spend around 40% of our food dollar eating out. Other nations spend half that. We have higher obesity rates. Many of those procedures are not "unnecessary" and are there to look for something more severe. That is why we have great results in healthcare. Our shortcomings is that fact that we cannot cover the very poor with basic care. But we cover the very sick and injured and are able to get them back on their feet quickly and efficiently. Other nations cannot do that. Yes, they cover the very poor with basic care, but their advanced care is poor. That is why you have around 7000 people dying a year in Australia on waiting list for "elective" surgery, or you have people dying on waiting lists in Canada for "elective" surgery. Those nations are able to keep prices down because they keep the quality low.
1
Teagan, I was thinking of another report. On this one say "Rather than try to build complex economic models...." Ok, I am done. Your first study tries to simplify a complex issue. Add the fact they have immature and facetious comments such as "Opponents of UHC should be careful not to use the conclusion above as a straw-man argument against supporters who actually know what they're talking about." If they knew what they were talking about they would have used a more complex model. But of course, screw complexity and the researchers who do the work. Let us do an 8th grade analysis of healthcare. Next, they look at obesity and diabetes. Type II diabetes and obesity are self inflicted issues. Access to healthcare would not solve that. On the demand issue they say "guess the behavior" in trying to avoid the complex model. They say "let's just look at the behavior itself." However, they later say "....we assume 80% of costs covered." Ok, are we looking at something objectively or assuming? Assuming is in line with guessing. Also, their analysis is off. They say that healthcare spending is around $8000 per person but then drop it down 80%. Why? I see no reasoning. But let us look at those numbers differently. They say government pays around $4100 per person. Government covers around 120 million people in 2011. That is 39% of the total population. Government, by their own numbers, covers 47% of the cost of healthcare but covers only 39% of the population. So one can do a model that is not "complex" and have healthcare costing more. Other countries lower cost by lowering quality. They have increased wait times and offer advanced care. They do not factor that in as well. Teagan, that report grossly over simplifies the issue with their assumptions.
1
Teagan, what statements do you want me to back up? I said a lot. Also, I can back up my statements, I just want to know which ones in particular you want me to back up.
1
Teagan, your last question is rather rude as you seem to be making the assumption that I do not support helping the poor. It is much more complicated than that, but in the end I want the highest quality of healthcare to as many people as possible. Next, it isn't so much if universal healthcare can "work" or not in the US. In the end I think it can "work", but you have to consider many factors. 1. Is it even better than what we have? Many say universal healthcare is better in terms of both outcomes and cost. However, those who say that are approaching this topic in a very shallow way. They look at raw stats and make a direct connection to healthcare when many factors contribute to them. Read the book "The Business of Health by Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt and Prof. John Schneider There they break down the numbers and show that as a whole the US is on compare to the world in terms of outcomes. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Another example is infant mortality. The US is high in that. However, we also have a high obesity rate, especially with the poor. There are higher rates of pregnancies with the poor and there is a higher rate of pre-term births with obesity. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/unplanned-births-another-outcome-of-economic-inequality/386743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23757084 Pre-term births are at greater risk of infant mortality. So when people say other nations do it better they are making a grossly over simplified argument. There is way more to the stats than they present 2. Is it even cheaper? We have covered this where I feel universal healthcare isn't unless you lower quality. The US offers more advanced care such as more CT scans. https://www.statista.com/statistics/283085/computer-tomography-examinations-in-selected-countries/ In other nations they lower the quality by offering less advanced care and having longer wait times for "elective" care. However, many people have died while waiting for "elective" care in countries like Canada and Australia where around 7000 die a year on waiting lists https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9616340 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708013/ https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/a7235c2d-3c90-4194-9fa1-b16edf7ff1f0/aihw-hse-197.pdf.aspx?inline=true In short, they keep prices low by lowering the quality. The US system is also expensive because of many government regulations. https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive So you have that of if universal healthcare is even better or cheaper? As a whole I would say no. I am not saying it is worse nor more expensive. I am saying that overall that it not any better than what we have now. So with that in mind you have to consider this. We are a nation of 320+ million people. Our GDP is over $18 trillion and healthcare is 1/6 of that. Installing universal healthcare would mean completely dismantling the system we have meaning killing jobs involved in it, taking out that component of the stock market, raising taxes on everyone, and forcing everyone to go to a new system. With higher taxes people will change the way they spend lowering consumption at the time which means less investment, less jobs, and a recession larger than this country has ever seen. Bear in mind that the housing market is around 5% of GDP. So considering how universal healthcare is no better than what we have now, and considering how installing it would lead to a major recession, I see no reason why we need to implement it.
1
Teagan, I know my comment was long, but is that it?
1
OK
1
kaneki ken, it isn't about big or small government. It is about limited government. It is about having a government with limits that we can control. Bernie wants to expand government and he does so saying he is going to provide for you. He is saying that we, the people, cannot provide for ourselves thus he needs to take our money we work for and he will provide for us. Sorry, but I moved out of my parents' house, the same parents who gave me a home and three square meals a day, because I knew I can provide something better. I know I can provide for myself better than the government can.
1
Kyle is not reasonable. He gave many deceptive numbers here in this video and he lives in a bubble. Also, he praised Bernie in this video where Bernie said some of the dumbest things anyone can say financially.
1
Interdimensional Steve, Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. Healthcare is close to 20% of GDP. Bernie is complaining about how we cannot make healthcare a "right" but can somehow afford to increase the defense budget to around 3.5% of GDP to close to 4% of GDP. That is a very poor comparison. If we did not increase the defense budget we still would not come even close to affording healthcare. Our social welfare programs cost more than defense. Social security alone is around 5% of GDP. Our student loan debt is $1.2 trillion. This defense budgets is going to be around $700 billion. Even if we cut defense spending down to zero it would not pay back the student loan debt. Bernie went on this rant about how we are increasing the defense budget and how it is bad and then goes on a rant on how we should pay for other things when he does not give a price tag on those programs. He is hiding important information and making purely an appeal to emotion statement to cater to the ignorant. To give two simple examples. One, I ate at Jimmy Johns yesterday. I could have saved money by eating something at home, but I ate at Jimmy Johns instead. You cannot say to me "well, you can afford Jimmy Johns, so why don't you buy a new car, or a new TV". Well, my mean at JJ was around $10. A new, or at least newer could would cost around $10,000. Bernie is asking how we cannot afford universal healthcare, which would be around 3 to 4 trillion dollars a year, but can afford an increase in the defense budget that is less than $200 billion. Do you see the problem? Another example is my saying my rent is $700 a month. Now I have not given you a standard. I have not given you how much space I have, how much I earn, what is rent in my city, etc. I have not given you anything else to determine if I am getting a good deal or not. That is similar to what Bernie does when complains about our increasing the defense budget. He gives a dollar amount but no standard.
1
Timothy, read my comment to Interdimensional Steve. Bernie is all over the place in his rant which is why few take him seriously.
1
Interdimensional Steve, as for Kyle. He is unreasonable because he praises Bernie this easily and does not get into details like I did. He can be against the defense increase, and he can be in support of universal healthcare and increasing our social welfare programs. But he has to be honest in the cost of these programs. $100 billion would not put a dent in healthcare spending. Kyle said that defense is more expensive then healthcare when is 100% not true. Kyle went on to point to a poll where we do not govern our nation based on mob rule. Also, those polls are very unreliable as they have vague questions with little details. Kyle always loves to points to polls as if they are strong arguments. Shortly after pointing to the poll he said Trump would campaign on how he was able to increase the defense budget. Well, Trump did win on ideas like that. So may, just maybe, people want it. Kyle said defense spending was "exploding" under Obama which is not true. In 2010 it was around 5.5% of GDP. It dropped down to 4%. Kyle rants about tanks in Nevada. They are outdated tanks in storage that are waiting to be sold for scrap and to foreign countries. Others are spare parts. Nevada is an empty state that is mostly federal land, so it makes it ideal for storage for out of date goods/services until we do something with them. There is a lot that Kyle says that is wrong here. I point it out constantly. Kyle at times brings up how we spend more on defense than the next 8 countries combine. That is highly deceptive. Our GDP is comparable to those nations combine. Our defense spending is going to be less than 4% of GDP. If you combine the GDP of those nations and look at their combine defense spending it is around 3% of GDP. So you are talking about a difference of a percent. Also, we spend more on education than many of those countries combine. So by Kyle's standard we need to cut on education as well. Kyle appeals to the ignorant, that is the bottom line. The things he says can easily be debunked with a minute level of critical thought.
1
Timothy, GDP is the base line to compare to. That is our total economy which includes government and private spending. So using GDP is 100% legit. Also, little suggests that a government funded healthcare system would lower prices. History has shown that government subsidized programs raises prices. In the end the defense budget is being increased around $100 billion. Even if you cut healthcare spending by 50% it would still cost around $2 trillion. That $100 billion would not come close to funding that.
1
Timothy, the reason why employers pay employees with insurance to begin with is because it is a tax free way to pay employees. The payroll tax is designed so if a company pays a higher wage they have to pay a higher tax. So instead they pay with employee/family discounts, stock options, a car, insurance, etc. Form of payments that is not a higher wage. So no, a company won't pay higher wage as they would not want to pay a higher tax. They will stop giving out healthcare insurance as a benefit. You need to ask yourself why businesses paid with healthcare insurance to begin with as opposed to going the easier route and pay with a higher wage. You should not just go with things blindly like you are. You have a way too simple way at looking at this issue.
1
jamviator, I believe I covered the argument of "next 8 countries combine". If you combine the GDP of those nations and look at defense spending it is around 2.5%. Our defense spending is around 4%. So you are talking about a difference of around a percent. Of course we spend more than other nations combine, our total GDP is bigger than man of those nations combine. We also spend more on education than many of those nations combine. Do you want to cut education? So I do ignore the argument of "8 countries combine". As for your comparison, say that person earning $100 is only paying for themselves, where the person earning $1 million is paying for themselves, family, workers and all around more people? That is the point. The US has a large defense budget because we have a larger country in population, land an economy. France spends around 2.3% of their GDP in defense. We are around 3.5%. Yes, we are more, but not by much when you look at it like that.
1
jamviator, I read your comment and I countered it showing that GDP is a legit standard. Your analogy was poor because you are comparing individuals where we need to be comparing countries. The US has a higher GDP along with more people. Thus it makes sense we spend more on defense as we have more people to defend and a larger economy and more resources. We also spend more on education than those countries as well. Defense spending can track GDP, that is how it works in economics.
1
jamviator, do you think we should be spending less on education then?
1
bryan s, yes, the $1.2 trillion wasn't created in one year, but it is there. Also, saying that this year increase alone can pay for college misses a lot of factors economically. You are increasing demand without increasing supply which means colleges will just raise prices or lower quality. You will also be ruining the value of a college degree. How do we spend far more than necessary on defense? Please explain. Just saying it does not make it true. Also, our healthcare and education cost is arguably bad because of government interference where we need less government, not more. And our military does a lot of good for society. Overall, pointing at GDP is to use a standard to show that our defense spending is not bloated. Is it too high? One can argue that, but it is not bloated.
1
jamviator, what you said is not a counter argument. What was wrong with what I said? All you did was give insults.
1
jamviator, it isn't just about people, it is also about resources. We have more resources as well. We spend less than 4% of GDP on defense and that has been around the norm for over 2 decades. In fact, it is less than 2 decades ago. It is around what other nations spend. We spend on defense not just on fighter jets but on research and pushing to promote peace by developing relations with others. We participate in humane work as well. 200 to 300 people is not much of a difference. France has 66 million, we have 320+ million. That is a difference. You hold different standards to education I see. Defense is an investment as well. Again, we do humane work and foreign relations. One can easily argue that you don't need much money from government to be educated as it comes from the individual. If you think you need government to educate you than you are in trouble.
1
A Gott, medicare for all will not be cheaper. Everyone is offered a K-12 education. Beyond that you should be able to educate yourself. Read a book, use the internet. As for being educated in the work force, you can become educated at the job as opposed to being in the classroom. Again, you have a K-12 education, you should be able to function just fine. Those tanks and planes in the desert are outdated equipment waiting to be shipped off for scrapped metal and are used for spare parts.
1
A Gott, universal healthcare will not save $17 trillion. I will ask you, how did they get that $49 trillion and how did they get that $32 trillion? I bet you don't even know. The reality is those numbers were calculated with two completely different methods. You cannot compare them. The $49 trillion made a grossly over simplified assumption of cost rising at the same rate over 10 years. The $32 trillion admitted their value is an underestimate, that they left out numerous variables. So please, stop citing that value. K-12 teaches you the basic things you need for life. Beyond that you are on your own. How long do you want the government to hold your hand? Seriously, do you need the government to keep educating your after 13 years of schooling? Yes, I agree, we need more workers in the STEM fields. The reason why we don't have many is because people simply do not want to do it. It has little to do with cost because those fields pay a lot. The value of a college degree isn't sitting in a classroom and learning. The value is developing connections, leaning how to manage time and money, showing employers you are willing to invest that in order to complete a long term goal. Compare college to K-12 schooling. You have more time outside of classroom in college. You are living on your own in college. You can pick your own courses. It is completely different than K-12 education. The value is developing connections and showing employers you are willing to invest your time and money to achieve a long term goal. If you make college "tuition free" you remove that second component. The problem I have with the whole "bloated military" argument is how people are complaining about how we cannot afford healthcare and "free college" but somehow can afford a military increase. That is a poor argument. The cost of those programs differ, how those programs are ran differ. You can make a solid argument against increasing the defense budget. But you cannot say "we should use that money for food stamps, healthcare and education". It isn't that easy. That is my major problem with the arguments I am hearing here.
1
Name And Address Supplied, I do show proofs for my claim. And I give strong counter arguments.
1
Name And Address Supplied, the fact you made the comment you did, in all caps, shows that my arguments are better than yours. You have no response and became mad.
1
Ever thought that you were the simple minded one? You are the one saying "free healthcare" and "free college" and "generous wage increase". Very vague talking points.
1
Better keep an eye on your wallet while you do it. . Also, Bernie is an idiot.
1