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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "What Bernie's Campaign Did Right u0026 Wrong" video.

How are they stupid?
10
@studio3js196 youtuber Actual Justice Warrior just did a video on that. On those exit polls it shows that people don't understand M4A to begin with and most actually support a public option. It is what I have been saying for a long time about polls, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. This once one major problem with Bernie and his supporters, they look at polls expecting them to mean something when they don't. As prof. Andrew Gelman said, polls are a snapshot, not a forecast.
3
Kyle is completely blinded with his love for Bernie.
2
@havoc467 , and how many actually won on that platform? In fact, people have looked into Bernie's platform and when that was done a lot of doubt was created.
2
Pushing M4A during the pandemic is ignorant and dangerous. You are using a temporary situation to push a permanent program and give government more power.
2
@studio3js196 , also, a major problem with Bernie is that people have had time to look at his plans and when they did a lot of doubt was created. And when pushed Bernie could not go beyond talking points. So I feel people are pretty smart. They realized Bernie has no actual plan.
2
People had time to look deeper at his ideas. When they did that people developed a lot of doubt in his policies.
2
1. Bernie's ideas were radical. In fact, over the past few years experts have looked into them like he wanted and doing so created a lot of doubt into his ideas. 2. Fair enough. But his past killed him. 3. What past social movements? 4. He did. It became an old talking point 5. He did
1
@Zarastro54 , economically non existed. If you want to talk about social ones then fine. But you can't name economic ones.
1
@1massboy , the civil rights movement was social, not economic that Bernie wants. Same with the suffrage movement. Unionization took place because of limitation of where an employer can operate. When technology became better unions have bigger challenges.
1
@1massboy , he keep attacking mill.....I mean billionaires (he stopped saying millionaires after he became one). He criticized corrupt politicians. For the media he did call out the media multiple times. Issue is that he never does his homework so he hardly knows anything about the media and politicians beyond talking points. It is just like his policies.
1
@1massboy , reality is that Bernie never does his homework. He just runs on a handful of talking points. He never had success outside of politics because he does not do any actual research. He just spews talking points. Someone like Tulsi had success outside of politics so she was able to obtain dirt on someone like Kamala. Trump has had success outside of politics so he was able to dig up dirt on the media.
1
@1massboy , it is radical to completely transform our current healthcare system which has many strengths. Also, Bernie's ideas are radical in that he dismisses counter arguments and never goes into details on his plans. To start, no, M4A won't be like Canada as they do not have a centralized system like Bernie wants. Next, government run healthcare systems has many issues themselves. As for polls, the same polling data Kyle points to shows more support for Biden and his public option plan over Bernie's M4A plan. As for the 1.5 trillion dollars, not to be rude but it is sad that some people are economically illiterate but have a strong opinion on it. That money came from the Federal Reserve who control the money supply. They are doing it because, by law, banks can only hold onto 10% off their reserves. You get into a situation like we have now where people are pulling money out of the banks the banks need to get the money from somewhere. They do from the Fed as credits and it will be given back when the economy improves. It stops banks from going under which is what happened in the Great Depression. Also, the Fed giving money to banks is temporary. Other countries do subsidize their colleges. There is a reason why the US has the best university system in the world. Also, a huge problem with Bernie and his fans is that they just want to throw a plan out there and let everyone else pick up the pieces. With tuition free college universities will have to make major adjustment to admission, enrollment, scheduling, etc. And how will you handle the NCAA? And no, taxing Wall Street won't pay for it.
1
@1massboy , on the current crisis there are two major differences here. One, this is an extreme case and thus something has to be done. Businesses are being forced to shut down, people are out of work, etc. This is no different than a relief package after a hurricane. Next, this is temporary. You are pushing for a permanent program by looking at a temporary program. A highly flawed argument.
1
@Zarastro54 , a lot of workers' protection comes from the free market. Ironically unions is a free market idea. Also, Bernie has nothing beyond talking points and has no details on his plans. As I said, when people had more time to do their research Bernie's ideas ended up having a lot of doubt. I will give you his talking point of wealth inequality for example. On the surface that may look bad, but when you look deeper you really question if current wealth inequality is bad at all. And if simply taxing it will actually work. In 2019 a paper entitled "Measuring Inequality" published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy wrote this about wealth inequality "There are a number of challenges, however, in using wealth to study inequality. First, it is illiquid, so it may not give a clear reflection of one’s immediate access to resources. Second, the easily measurable components of wealth—like financial wealth—are incomplete. Take, for example, a student. In many cases their student debt will outweigh their other financial assets, and so they will have negative financial wealth. However, we would not typically say that they are in a worse position than never having studied at all. The reason is because the student has taken on debt to accumulate human capital, which is valuable as a means to increase lifetime earnings but not typically counted as wealth. Policies designed to reduce wealth inequality could therefore have many undesirable consequences, not least redistributing away from people with zero assets towards those with negative assets. These issues could be addressed by valuing human capital, but this is difficult to do. And if we are going to include university education as an asset, then what about other forms of human and social capital, such as charisma, coordination, health, or one of many other personal assets that can have material worth? Or collective assets, like public schools, hospitals, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds? Ultimately a comprehensive calculation of someone’s wealth is very difficult to measure." When you consider that it makes Bernie's talking point of wealth inequality questionable. The same with other issues like healthcare, tuition free college, the min. wage etc. In 2016 during a town hall in Vegas he was asked how will he stop businesses from raising prices after he raises the min. wage. His response was the typical talking point of how no one working full time should poor. The guy had to ask the question again as Bernie did not answer it. During a debate on healthcare against Cruz a hair salon owner asked Bernie how she can expand and afford to pay for her employees' healthcare. His response was to say that he did not know that she will have to do it. He had no desire to understand her profit margins, compare it to her competitors, full time vs part time employees, etc. When Bill Clinton was asked a similar question in 1994 by Cain Clinton responded with stats to show he took time to understand the basics how a business operates. Reality is that Bernie has never done his research. When people have on his ideas it exposed him as a radical with no actual plan.
1
@1massboy , how does the system sucks? It has issues but you improve the system we have. The US does many things well. It is superior in access to advanced testing, survival rates in advanced illnesses, R&D, etc. The US does many things well. Also, one insurance system is called a monopoly which leads to inefficiency.
1
@1massboy , uh, it isn't about seeing it again. It wasn't tax dollars. It were credit by the Fed. And yes, a collapsing bank hurts the people. That was a major problem of the Great Recession. A bank that goes under means people no longer have access to their money. And again on Trump, this policy is temporary due to a pandemic. You can't use a temporary policy to justify a permanent one.
1
@1massboy , wall street will have a choice. The value of the stocks will drop. "As for making adjustments to the college system in general. Look they’re just gonna have to deal with the new normal of subsidize state colleges." Yeah, fuck 'em, who cares? You aren't involved in taking care of that challenge.
1
@elizabethsmusicandarts1590 , even if the majority of people agree does not make a policy correct. I bet the majority want a million dollars, thus should we just give it to them? I am not against change, but the reality is that Bernie's ideas are radical. I have explained it, in details, many times here. I don't care if the majority agree with his ideas (even though data shows they don't). Also, if the majority agrees with him why is he losing? Bernie's past movements had him praising communism and Castro and Ortega. Fact is that Bernie is a career failure and his ideas are radical. I have pointed that out many times. The fact you ignore it shows you have a firmly held, religious like belief in that.
1
@1massboy , workers did have protections because of the free market. Unions were developed under the free market.
1
@JP-xg6bv M4A may make your life easier, but what about the big picture? That is the issue. Most won't be better off. What infrastructure? Saying "invest in it" is a poor argument. Creating jobs is easy, creating wealth is much more difficult. It isn't about people not wanting to do nothing. We want to do something. The issue is that it can't be extreme. Bernie is an extremist.
1
@1massboy , the Fed is making sure banks don't do under. The government does not control the money supply, the fed does. Please learn economics.
1
@1massboy , so fuck college? And this is why your side is losing. You refuse to try to understand the other side of the issue.
1
@Zarastro54 , government was just as bad during that time and was bought out. So you can't say laws created safer work environments. In the end the free market does as people will refuse to work in an unsafe place. As for "slave wages" I can tell you are not an honest character in this discussion. Slaves were forced to work. No one is forcing these people to work. As for child labor in developing nations, it goes beyond law there and is an issue of culture. It is far more complex then what you are making it. But in the US it was the free market the led to safer working conditions, not law. That passage does refute what Bernie says. As I said, Bernie has no actual details in his plans. He just shouts a talking point and makes the claim things are terrible. On wealth inequality as the passage said, it is hard to measure. One is that wealth is not liquidated. To give an example sure, Bezos may be worth billions, but that is because he has the most shares of his company. He can't just liquidate them. If he did and spent it in a frivolous way investors will see that as him being a high risk investment and will pull out making his shares worth less. As for student loans and debt, no, it does not hamper students to accumulate wealth. "Our collective assets are being undermined all the time, be it public schools, hospitals, pensions etc., so I guess that helps explain why people are getting worse off!" How are people worse off? They aren't. Besides, here is the reality, beyond owning a home the average person has very little wealth. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Why? Because those who have a lot of wealth are people like Bezos where most of their wealth is tied into their shares they own. A tricky issue there is that wealthy can change quickly. Simply look at the stock market for example. It isn't like it is set in stone. One reason why Bezos' shares are so valuable is because he is the major owner of them which shows investors he stands by his product. However, if he were to just liquidate them and spend it in a frivolous way investors will pull out causing the value to drop. Same in if the government were to tax it investors will see that as a waste and thus the shares of the stocks will drop. That is what makes the whole wealth inequality talking point flawed. People who shout it don't know what wealth actually is. "Wealth isn't the only way to measure inequality, sure, but to act as though it's not a major factor simply because it is difficult to calculate is foolish" I feel it is not a major factor. Again, Bezos is wealthy simply due to being the major share holder of his company. What are shares? It isn't food, water, oil, etc. It isn't raw materials. In many ways his wealth is very subjective in value. Just because he is worth billions does not take food out of people's mouths or take away homes. In fact, he became wealthy because he provide people an easier way to shop. Same with other wealthy people. So no, saying there is wealth inequality does not mean things are bad. "On healthcare, switching to single payer payer specifically eliminates the concern of ALL business owners having to find a way to pay for their employees' healthcare; that alone is a major burden off her back." Or removing the payroll tax. In fact, M4A raises the payroll tax which will cause more harm to businesses, especially those who don't pay healthcare to begin with. So no, it won't eliminate the concerns of business owners. It will actually cause more problems. A reason why employers pay their employees with healthcare insurance is because it is a tax free way to pay employees. As for the studies saying M4A will save money, there are many flaws there. To start, all use the fact that M4A pays 40% less than private insurance and that healthcare providers will be paid less. Thus with that you have to realize quality and access will drop. Sure, under M4A we will be paying around the same as other nations do in terms of percent of GDP. But like other nations we will simply offer less care. As is the US leads the world in access to advanced testing and care and thus is superior in survival rates in advanced illnesses. Now there are arguments for and against that which highlights a very important issue with Bernie and his fan base, they refuse to have the challenging discussions. They act like you do and say "M4A will cost less" without understanding something has to give. I will give you some cases. In the UK a few years ago a teenage girl saw over 10 doctors over many months complaining about headaches. They all said they were migraines. Finally she was offered an MRI but had to wait four months. It was a tumor. She died. If she would have been offered the MRI sooner she would be alive. In the US she would have been offered that MRI most likely on the first meeting. If not the first than the second for sure. However, here is the issue. Statistically speaking chances were that she had migraines. So you run into the issue of should we be spending limited resources on that girl and be better safe than sorry? Or should we not offer it which keeps costs down and allows resources to be allocated elsewhere? Those are the difficult topics Bernie and his fans refuse to have. Yes, we spend a lot, but that is because we offer advanced care so much to catch an issue like a tumor sooner. Another example is with the very sick and elderly. As written in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live 5 or 10 months. Other nations, with the sick and elderly, simply just drug them up so they can pain free. In the US we push to keep them alive as long as possible. But when chances are they live only around 6 months, is it worth it? Is it worth keeping grandma alive that much longer, or the person with cancer? I just had a friend die of cancer. They pushed to keep him alive as long as possible. When I heard he had cancer I knew he was dead. But they pushed to keep him alive. He died 3 months later. Was it worth it? During his final days he was in a wheelchair and a feeding tube and in and out of hospitals when statistically he was going to die soon. You see, you and other Bernie fans don't actually fully understand the issues and the complexity of them. You just go off of talking points. I feel it is mainly because you have no responsibilities in life. In healthcare when payment to healthcare providers is cut 40% you won't be the ones making the difficult decisions on who to provide what kind of care and having to tell patients and family that "sorry, we can't offer you that as the government won't pay for it". You refuse to understand the complexity of the issues. So no, Bernie has not details in his plans.
1
@1massboy , nothing wrong with debt. The value of college is that it is an investment you make as an adult. If you make it "tuition free" a college degree becomes worthless. And again, you are not the ones involved in those programs so you don't care. Same with healthcare. Under M4A healthcare providers will be paid 40% less. You are not going to place the pressure on healthcare providers to decide what care to provide and to who. And they will now have to tell patients and family members "sorry, we can't offer that care as the government won't pay for it". You lost because you can't sell your message beyond talking points. People did what Bernie wanted, they looked at the issues and talked about them. The people don't approve.
1
@1massboy , education is on you. You don't need to go to college to become educated. There are plenty of books and resources out there. Thus the value of college comes from the fact that it is an investment you make as an adult. That is what employers value, that you are willing to invest resources to earn a college degree. Again, you can educate yourself without college. College is not like high school. So the 40% difference comes from paper work? I doubt it is that high. In fact, Medicare arguably has more paper work and admin costs. Also, negotiate prices in a "fair" way. Define "fair". And how do you expect the government to negotiate prices as if it is that easy. In this case healthcare providers have the upper hand. They will say that the government will not cover something and the people will blame the government, not healthcare providers. "There is no reason to believe that doctors will not prescribe needed procedures and tests for your patience. " There is. If something cost $500 to do and the government will only pay $300 they won't do it, or make you wait a long time. That is basic economics. That is what other nations do, they limit how much care one receives. "Also one thing That does need to be added to Medicare for all is to create an environment for doctors not to feel the need to prescribe unnecessary and unneeded procedures and/or tests because they are afraid that they will be sued by the patient. " Is it unnecessary? I agree that lawsuits are adding to the costs in healthcare, however that is also related to our culture. You expect our society to stop suing people?
1
@1massboy , again, the value of a college degree is that it is an investment you make as an adult. Many people don't even work in the field in which they earned their degree from. Yes, you have to make investment in life to succeed. Nothing is given to you. If you make colleges tuition free employers will value other attributes and will no longer value a college degree.
1
@elizabethsmusicandarts1590 , doesn't matter if the majority agree, pushing to completely dismantle a system that is functioning well and replace it is radical. "but a policy that saves a minimum of sixty-eight thousand lives as m4a would is certainly something I support" How do you know it will save that many? You don't. And no, the majority don't agree with you. And saying I want people to die is foolish to say. I bet I know way more about healthcare than you do. Bernie is not losing because the system is rigged. And no, I don't like corruption. That is one reason why I am against Bernie. I do not want to give the federal government more power to sell.
1
@1massboy , and why do employers value a degree? Because it is an investment you make as an adult. Just like people have pushed businesses to improve causing them to make investments, even in the form of a loan. You do know it requires debt a lot of time to start a business and hire people? But you will ignore that. Nothing wrong with debt. It is a part of the investment. "If businesses would just stop making it a requirement For entry level jobs." In the competitive field you have to separate yourself from others somehow. If you make college tuition free successful people will find other ways to sell themselves. And again, consumers and workers place high demand on companies as well. Good luck changing the market's attitude. Basically what you are supporting is forcing people down. How about we change the market's standard that we need same delivery and a new smart phone every year?
1
@Zarastro54 , again, unions are a part of the free market. I support unions. But to say government had a strong hand is not true. It was the free market and unions. A great example was in mining where strong unions made that safer. "hat real "choice" does someone have when a huge company has crushed all local business and is now the only place that offers minimal benefits, but you are too poor and immiserated to pack up and move to "find a better job?" There are SO many scenarios that limit people's economic mobility, and the issue is immensely more complex than "people just won't work in bad conditions;" a notion refuted by literally all of human history, but you'd rather not think of these tough issues," I find this ironic as I am a person who does think about these complex issues. Saying a large company squashed smaller ones is very flawed. That mainly happened in rural areas where the people there don't mind. Go into a Walmart in a rural town and go into one in a city. There are major differences. The one in a rural town is much nicer as the locals run it. Also, urbanization has been taking place where more people are moving to cities with more opportunity and jobs. So to say people are limited is not true at all. In fact, they have more opportunity than ever with technology being what it is. "Rising suicide and addiction rates, skyrocketing personal debt, stagnant wages despite growing productivity, a shrinking middle class, 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, 40% can't even afford a $400 emergency. You are in a bubble if you think everyone is doing perfectly fine. " Wages have arguably not been stagnant. Plenty of data suggests that. Suicide rates and addiction rates are arguably going up because of the federal government ruining mental healthcare after the passage of the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Nothing all wrong with as debt actually grows the economy through the inverted pyramid. How many of those living paycheck to paycheck do so because of poor money management? Of those 40% how many have easy access to loans or charities? What insurance do they have? What do you man by "emergency"? You claim I simplify things when you did just that. You threw a bunch of numbers at me and then went to a strong, appeal to emotion rant when so many factors influence those numbers. And as I said, some of the numbers might not be true such as wage stagnation. There is plenty of data suggesting wages have gone up. "Of course massive debt harms people's future finances and wealth generation! Having huge debts to pay off prohibits or delays people from buying cars, houses, starting families, and contributing to the economy in general." No it doesn't. As I said, debt does grow the economy through what is called the "inverted pyramid". "This oft repeated assertion that "we pay more for superior care" is something that is not borne out by evidence. The US has far more annual deaths due to lack of access than anywhere else; likewise we have the worst life expectancy relative to expenditure than anyone else" As I said, in the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas he lays out how we are superior in access to advanced care and superior in survival rates in advanced illnesses. Your other points are flawed. One, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. So saying we have "far more annual deaths due to lack of access" is not supported by any evidence. Next, on life expectancy, many factors outside of healthcare influence it. For example, compared to other OECD nations we have the highest percentage of blacks in society where blacks, genetically, have higher rates of heart disease. That plays a role. And other nations simply live healthier life styles. You can't take a broad stat like life expectancy and make a strong conclusion. "It would be political suicide in the UK to come out against the NHS in favor of a US style system. " And same in the US which is why Bernie is losing so bad and why Obama lost the house after Obamacare was passed. "I'm sure costs for some businesses might go up, however the net effect will be a reduction in cost. An Economic Policy Institute study found that single payer would most likely increase wages and job quality overall" What about businesses that don't pay with healthcare? They will see an increase in cost. Also, payroll taxes keep wages down. That is why employers rather go through the trouble of paying with benefits as opposed to higher wages. If they pay a higher wage they have to pay a higher tax. "The "difficult decisions" about healthcare triage already happen in our current system, and with far worse consequences than anywhere else." How is it worse than anywhere else? As I said, other nations just let people die. They have lower survival rates as they deny advanced care compare to the US. Is that the best? As I broke down there are arguments for and against it. Is it valuable to keep someone very sick alive when chances are they will live only an extra few months? Other nations say no. We say yes. That is what our society values. You apparently don't. I will be more supportive of M4A if the people pushing for it are honest like that, in that very sick people will be told it is their time to go as opposed to doing what we do now, and that is keep them alive. "What you described is actually particular of the private industry trying to save every penny to grow their margins. There won't be any haggling with the government with guaranteed single payer care, like you currently do with private insurance." Private insurance does not deny care as much as people claim. Government will simply because they will refuse to pay. That is what happens in other nations. Again, we lead the world in survival rates of advanced illnesses. " You talk about "what is worth it" when thousands of people die of preventable or treatable illnesses every year. Your scenario of cancer patients using limited resources in a futile attempt to extend their lives is not the norm and is not something borne out in the data." Of those "thousands" that die from "preventable" diseases they have other health issues as well. As prof Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Look at the current situation with this virus. People who are dying are old or very sick to begin with. People hardly die from some disease, it is a collection of issues. So bringing up those "thousands" is a flawed argument. As for the cancer patient, something has to give. Resources are limited. Other nations save money and resources by deny people with cancer care, we don't. "For every one horror story from the UK or some other nation, someone could easily provide two from the US. Misdiagnoses are not at all something particular to the UK or countries outside the US. There is no guarantee that if recommended an MRI in the US, she'd have taken it due to cost concerns." This was not a misdiagnoses. It was the fact that the NHS system will not cover an MRI until you choose all other cheaper options over the course of time. And how do you know cost would have been an issue? The vast majority in the US can afford that expensive treatment. That is why healthcare reform is so challenging.
1
@Zarastro54 , how do I ignore evidence? I actually took your evidence and dug deeper and cited many experts. You do what Bernie does, throw a stat out there and run with it on an appeal to emotion argument. On the thousands of deaths, again, chances are they were in terrible health to begin with. So even if you give them treatment and they live an extra few months, was that a success? Those are the questions you refuse to take on. As for the exit polls, it actually supports Biden. Actual Justice Warrior broke that down where the same polling data Kyle points to says that the people support a public option over Bernie's M4A system that bans private insurance and raises taxes. But again, I am the one that digs deeper in the issues and cited actual experts.
1
@Zarastro54 there is a lot of evidence to suggests that those people die due to having other healthcare complication. As prof. Katherine Baicker said, the question is if they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. I notice a trend here, I am citing many experts here where you just dismiss what I say and continue to go with talking points. Also, even in nations with universal healthcare systems amenable mortality is an issue they face. So even with M4A there will still be deaths due to lack of access. As for AJW's video, he addressed. He addressed the fact that people did not understand M4A as they did not know it will eliminate private insurance. It isn't about if they want Medicare over private insurance, they want people to have a choice. Thus they don't support M4A as written by Bernie. They support a public option.
1
@Zarastro54 as far as keeping doctors and hospitals, where is that guaranteed? Remember that under Obamacare people were supposed to be allowed to keep the insurance they had were many ended up being kicked off. Bernie voted for that bill. So I am supposed to believe him now? Based on what?
1
@1massboy "For the most part the degree is already been cheapen and by the market requiring everyone to have one to start an entry-level job in a lot of fields. For company it’s just a box to check for the most part." Nope. Again, a degree is you, as an adult, making an investment showing employers you are willing to invest to better yourself. "In essence you’re forcing people to have a degree and put themselves in debt in order to provide any type of a future for themselves." They don't have to. They can pull out a loan and start a business instead of pulling out a loan to go to college. Besides, that is how the market always works. It is not forcing anyone to do anything, it is shifting based on what employers and consumers value. Again, if you make college "tuition free" the market will adjust to where employers won't value a college degree but value other attributes people have to work for. "It really doesn’t make a difference at least in terms of job prospects whether they put themselves into debt or they receive subsidized education." If you make college tuition free you make it easily accessible to people and thus the value drops. Trying selling sand in the desert, you can't. Why? Because sand is everywhere. That is how the market works. You know, it will really behoove you to study economics. "And again. If you put these kids into a high amount of debt. You’re going to drag down the economy because these kids cannot participate in the economy. You are damaging the economy with this continue to rise in debt for the young. " Actually no, debt grows the economy. They will pay it back with interest. They will be participating in the economy greatly.
1
@1massboy , I do have to comment on trade. It wasn't trade that ended lowered manufacturing jobs, it was technology. Prior to the trade deals manufacturing jobs were disappearing to begin with. That was the trend. Also, one can argue that manufacturing jobs were not meant to live off of. A reason why they paid so well in the past is because after WWII the US was ahead of the world as the rest of the world was rebuilding. Thus we were strong economically. Things change. "You idiots actually need people like me to save you from stupid ass yourselves." I find irony here considering you don't understand basic economics as you have shown in your discussion of tuition free college.
1
@1massboy "I know the trade deals for the last 30 years in this country have not helped America at all in anyway. Otherwise American standards of living would not be declining overtime" Actually American standard of living has gone up. The trade deals has made goods cheaper for people. To say standards are dropping is simply not true.
1
@1massboy , your predictions on politics is going to be wrong. To start, as people get older they become more conservative. So don't expect Bernie's ideas to become implemented anytime soon. Next, Gen Z is said to be very conservative for their age. My opinion is because, unlike millennials, they grew up in a bad economy and thus were not spoiled where Millennials grew up in a strong economy and became entitled. Hints why so many support Bernie's give away policies on shallow evidence and arguments.
1
@jamesmacaw3865 1. He does support open borders. 2. Doesn't matter what he calls himself, he is a communist 3. Calling Trump a racist and saying white people can't be poor is identity politics. 4. Have to pass on this one 5. Yes, he defended communist dictators. Cuba's education improved because it was a "become educated or die" program. Also, many Bernie fans defend Bernie in saying "all he wants to do is give you an education and healthcare", sure, like Castro did. That is a problem.
1
@lawsonashurst7314 coverage does not equal access
1
@purplepotatoes9255 coverage does not equal access
1
@lawsonashurst7314 , cheaper means it simply pays healthcare providers less. Thus, like what other nations do, healthcare will be denied. So people will have less access. A major reason why the US pays so much is because we offer the most access to advanced care compared to other nations. Now there are arguments for and against, but that is the reality. But to add over 30 million to the system and cut pay by 40% and expect the same level of access of care is foolish to think that will happen.
1
@choncha23 , the older you get the more conservative you become. When the younger generation starts paying bills and taxes they will lean right. Also, Gen Z is expected to be pretty conservative.
1
@lordoftheflies7024 , private care cost more because it provides more care. Under M4A sure costs will be less, but so will access and quality of care.
1
@mischevious who denies climate change? Also, saying we have X amount of years left is not what scientists are saying.
1
@mischevious , that Yale study has been criticized in they admit healthcare providers will be paid less. Thus you have to realize with that they will simply limit access to care. And as for "saving" thousands of lives, that will come at a cost in that other lives will suffer. As for some of your numbers, 4% is high for a lot of people. Now consider those who currently have no healthcare payments. Who this bill will harm are the young who are typically paid less but also have no healthcare spending. As for prescription costs, a reason why prescription medicine costs so much is because of R&D. Another reason is because drug companies donate a lot of medication to developing nations. So with maxing the price developing nations will become worse off and R&D will be less. As for disruption of care, really? I am expected to believe that after Obamacare? Also, when my doctor has more patients something has to give. And saying everything will be covered I just need to rest assured is you saying you can't guarantee anything that I should just believe you because reasons.
1
@lawsonashurst7314 Medicare arguably has more admin costs. As for rankings they are arbitrary. No nation provides care to all. In many ways the US is strong. For example, we lead the world in access to advanced care and have higher survival rates in advanced illnesses.
1
@lordoftheflies7024 , in the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas he outlines how in the US we have the highest access to advanced testing and care and have the highest survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations "cover" everyone because they limit how much care one receives. As for people not having insurance, how many are young and simply choose not to have it? And define "under insured". Again, how many are young? But as a whole Americans receive the most care in the world.
1
@mischevious , what corporate talking points? Why do you feel anyone who opposes your ideas is doing some corporation's bidding? How are insurance companies spending money on disinformation? Also, ever thought Bernie and his fan base are doing the same thing? One person just cited a Commonwealth Fund article which is a private entity that supports universal healthcare. They have published a lot of misinformation in the past as well. So it goes both ways. Where should I find this "correct information"?
1
@mischevious , they don't deny climate change. He called a Chinese hoax in that there are people who over exaggerate it. But he never denied it. No, scientists are not saying we are running out of time. Prof. Myles Allen of the IPCC is very critical of those people and Prof. Mike Hulme published a paper in Nature Climate Change entiled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" You see, I actually read what the scientists are saying. The issue of climate change is that we don't know how much man plays a role. We don't know if it is bad and we don't know how to really tackle it. So much is unknown.
1
@lordoftheflies7024 the vast majority can afford it. That is the point. That is why healthcare reform is so difficult
1
@lordoftheflies7024 eventually far leftists like you will accept reality
1
@mischevious so I cite scientists and this is how you act?
1
@lordoftheflies7024 , cost are high because they are advanced testing. You get what you pay for. Other nations simply deny the care.
1
@lordoftheflies7024 , most Americans are not uninsured or under insured. Yes, cost do determine the level of testing. And overhead exist in any system. One can argue there is more overhead in Medicare. Pharma drugs cost a lot because of the massive R&D behind it and the fact that pharma companies donate a lot of drugs to developing nations. As for other nations and lower prices, they do not have the R&D that we do and they don't subsidize other nations. In all, the US drug companies subsidize the rest of the world. And as for treatment, they deny care. For example, they have less MRI and CT scans per capita.
1
Jason Meza , how old am I? And under M4A people will lose their healthcare. Again, the US leads the world in survival rates in advanced illnesses.
1
@fjbz3737 , I am.
1
@fjbz3737 ,why?
1
@studio3js196 , how has the video been debunked? Parts of the poll asked about M4A in if they support it if it took away private insurance. Most said no. So please explain how the video been debunked? Also, you ignored my other parts about how polls are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. When more information is given opinions change.
1
@kensuke0 not what?
1
@domroman4124 , if you read the polling data more support a public option. Take a state Bernie won, CA. 66% support single payer where 86% supported a public option. This is consistent in the states where polling was done. So based on the polling they do not support Bernie's M4A plan but instead support a public option. The question you are asking is suggesting some sort of government public option people can decide to go on over private insurance. It DOES NOT say that people support M4A.
1
@DoratTheKiller , no, they support a public option. The same polling source saw people favored a public option over Bernie's M4A option. Learn how to read the polls.
1
@studio3js196 https://www.kff.org/interactive/the-role-of-health-care-in-the-2020-election/
1
@studio3js196 , I posted the link
1
@shockwave2291 , it goes both ways. If the voters are easily persuaded by the media then why should we trust their opinions on polling data? As for Chomsky, my advice is to not listen to him. He is a guy who sounds brilliant but isn't. He was impactful in his field and I will admit that. But outside of that he wasn't. His field, though, had it so he can write and speak well. For example, we don't live in a democracy.
1
@BXGUY73 , I can say the same thing about people voting for Bernie.
1
@BXGUY73 , typical far leftist response.
1
@BXGUY73 , the whole "people are stupid" argument is shallow. What makes you think they are not voting in their best interest? There are many legit reasons to not vote for Bernie.
1
@dr.dermixgirlmd7479 , your thought process is dangerous. You are using a crisis to make an excuse to give government more power.
1
@dr.dermixgirlmd7479 , even with systems like a UBI or M4A we will still have problems. In fact we will arguably have more problems.
1
@TheBigGSN5 , they aren't. Also, on that, Bernie pointed to the Scandinavian nations saying he wants to copy their plan. Well, people looked into them and realized that he does not. They have a flat tax, a VAT tax, a 100% tax on cars, etc. They tax their citizens more. Bernie wants to tax the rich, wall street and corporations more. That is not how those nations function. Also, people have looked at the issue of culture and how their culture greatly differs from ours. That just scratches the surface. So no, it is not the standard.
1
@seta-san2149 , I don't like Bernie but Warren did lie. She has a long history of lying.
1
@seta-san2149 , I agree. That is why Warren has no credibility.
1