Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Protesters Burn Medical Bills For Single-Payer" video.

So they figured out that they can't afford socialism, what a shocker.
2
Dylan Stone Yes, our country that has 300 million people and is the most diverse in the world. I love it when people try to compare us to a country like Norway who has only 5 million people. Also, we have a very progressive tax system, the top 10% paid 70% of federal taxes.
2
Dylan Stone The US is the most diverse country based on this, hop on a plane in Oslo and in 2 hours you are in London. Hop on a plan in Minneapolis and in 2 hours you are in Dallas. It takes me 4 hours to fly home and that is halfway across the country, there are countries that it takes less than 4 hours to drive across. The US is like 50 countries in one where the states are completely different. I could tell the difference moving from the Midwest to the west side of the US how different everything is. The US is the most diverse country in the world. Do you really think single payer actually worked in the USSR? The simple fact is that the US is so different than every other country, we really can't be compared. The US should strive to develop a better system, not copy other countries' systems that have problems and in a lot of ways are inferior to the US. On wealth, 60% of a homeowner's wealth is tied into their home. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth then a renter. Besides owning a home the average person has little wealth which is fine. A person is no debt or assets and only $5 in their pocket has more wealth than 25% of the country. That is because we have a group of individuals (particularly young college grads) with negative wealth due to loans. I have negative wealth due to my college loan. At the same time I drive a reliable car, have my own 1 bedroom apartment, high speed internet, a smart phone, food every day and so on. So your idea no wealth is flawed. The reason why so much wealth is consolidated in the top is because not everyone wants to own a run a business. I am working on getting my PhD. I could earn a nice income and still have little wealth due to me not wanting to own a run a business. Also remember that wealth doesn't equal income. If you are truly studying economics than you need to learn the difference between wealth and income real quick. Also you need to learn why there is a disparity in wealth. In reality the homeless bum that I walked drove by earlier has more wealth than me considering he has no assets but also, I assume, no debt, thus no wealth. I have negative wealth as I just told you.
2
Dylan Stone Australia is a country you can compare the US too and Australia is successful in some ways. I would argue that the US is superior than Australia in terms of research, innovation, and the university system, but it is interesting how Australia didn't face a recession when almost every other country did. The pure simple fact is that the US is the most diverse country in the world. We are like 50 countries in one. You can tell just by going from one state to a neighboring state how different they are. If you simply can't accept that then you are at a lost at this point. Reading the rest of your post shows you are not very knowledgeable in economics. I will save some time and just point out a few highlights. You mentioned productivity. Wages have gone up due to productivity. The fact is that due to technology which was implemented by skilled workers and those CEOs that productivity has gone up. Productivity hasn't gone up due to workers working harder but instead those investing and inventing the new technology and those individuals have seen their wages go up. Now you may see that as bad but consider this, look at how well the middle and lower class have it now. A VCR use to cost $2000, I recently saw an ad for an Xbox 1 for $350. A pocket calculator cost $200, my TI 84 cost $100. My computer has more computing power then what put a man on the moon. It use to be only the rich had brick cell phones, now those in poverty has smart phones. What I am getting at is that when the top gets better so do everyone else. You don't improve society with a progress tax that basically means you bring people down. You improve society by allowing for growth to happen and push people to get better. All a progress tax does is hinder growth which we don't want. This argument of jealousy that we need to attack the rich just because they have a lot needs to stop. As their life gets better so do ours. If you hold them back then we can't grow due to a ceiling being set.
2
Dylan Stone Australia isn't really a socialist country, it has more economic freedom than the US. You trying to mock me shows you are ignorant on the subject and lack maturity in several ways. You mention supply side economics. The simple fact is that you can't consume what you don't produce. Just giving money away doesn't do anything if it didn't produce anything. You are lost on that subject as well. The US does have the best university system. We have affordable options for undergraduates to go to and for graduates we able to give them stipends to not only pay for college but to also pay for rent and food. Working with foreigners in college that is what attracted them to the US, how great the colleges were and the affordability. Also the fact that we can speak English and so can them. In all, they simply said the US has the best university system in the world. The internet may have been invented by the government, but it was popularized and perfected by the free market. The free market took the internet and made use to it. The government didn't create Amazon or Youtube or other such websites. The government would never do that. Remember, they couldn't build a website for Obamacare. Your mindset that only few economists would agree with me is flawed. Most are for a more free market approach. And as I said, you mocking me and creating these immature genetic fallacies shows your ignorance on the subject. You have nothing relevant to say so you just act like a child.
2
Dylan Stone I doubt you showed this to your professor, but if it makes you feel good saying that then fine. I doubt a professor would say not to bother arguing with supply siders in that one, I never heard a professor mention words like that, and two, professor encourage debating people in that is how information gets spread. With you saying that I can tell that you are incredibly myopic, immature and too ignorant to understand economics. I can say that without reading the rest of the comment but I will do so anyway. Let us see what you wrote. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Yes, we have loopholes but we also have state corporate tax rates. The US also have massive social safety nets. People who are "poor" in the US have a better life than those are not poor in other industrialized countries. Your concept on demand is false. People can demand a lot of things, and in reality demand for a better way of life, as in better goods and services is infinite. That is why businesses push to create better goods and services in order to sell them to consumers. But you also need to realize that you can't consume what you don't produce. If the middle and lower class have more money but there isn't any more goods and services to buy with it than nothing was accomplished. You can tell your "professor" that and if they disagrees then I will challenge them personally. Just give me their email address and I will challenge them. I have no problems with regulations. But too much can be a problem. As I said before Australia has less regulations than the US. There is more economic freedom in Australia than in the US. Being in a family with those with economics degrees, some with PhDs, being around several economist and reading other sources from economist it is clear to me that they will take my side on these issues. You may feel that the US doesn't have the best university system, the simple fact is that it does. There is a reason why foreigners comes to the US to attend college when other universities offer a college education for free. I like how you went to a genetic fallacy at the end. It is clear you don't attend college, or do so with a low GPA. I guess your "professor" taught you well in that regards. I hope you love being ignorant while I become successful in what I do. Remember, Australia was a dumping ground for convicts in the past.
2
Cai Macdougall I like how you mentioned austerity. In the US we don't practice austerity. During the recession spending and government jobs went up. You also have to consider that in Australia they have more economic freedom than in the US. One issue you have to realize is that countries are different so comparing one country to another is difficult. There are some common parts in Australia and the US but there are also some major differences. Just because single payer supposedly works in Australia or other countries in that matter (and it is debatable) doesn't mean it will work in the US. Also, why should we push for their systems? They clearly have problems. The US near the top in responsive care. We lead the way in research and innovation in healthcare. We are near the top in cancer survival rates. One of my colleagues is from Canada and his family hates the Canadian system and love the US system. He told me of some advantages of Canada's system but overall said the US system is superior. The fact is that this is a lot more complicated than what people make it out to be. You can't just simply point at one country and say "see, it works there", well, they have socialized healthcare in Venezuela, they also have massive inflation and under Hugo Chavez have seen crime go up 400%.
2
MsZeitgeist85 Not really, there is a strong portion of research that is funded privately. The problem is that there is becoming more and more publically funded research, it has been growing in the past two decades and I wouldn't consider that a good thing and I work in the field of research. When the NIH funds for healthcare research they do so in a broad way. While that may be good in a way it does have a tendency to lead to wasted funds. This colleague laid it out to me like this with Canadian and US healthcare. Canadian's system is great if you are a pregnant woman or if you need a basic checkup. But for specialized care, as in his case he needed knee surgery, or when his cousin needed heart surgery, you won't be able to get care in Canada, but you can in the US. The US can do procedures that no other country can do. That is key. Many people look at the basics when comparing the two systems when we should look at who can do the best specialized care and what system has the best room for growth. The US system is superior in that regards. Plus, I wouldn't say this guy is ignorant, he just got his PhD.
2
Cai Macdougall My colleague explained it like this. Canada's system is great if you are a pregnant woman or if you need a basic check, but if you need something specialized as in surgery or even worse than you most likely won't get it. Socialized care is great for the basics, I would admit that. It would benefit me in that I don't have anything seriously wrong with me, and when I get to the time that I will I would have enough funds to afford specialized care due to the high paying career I am pursuing. The problem with socialized care is that it limits growth, and lacks specialized care for the everyday person as opposed to the rich. We need a system that promotes growth and allows everyone to benefit the best way possible. That is what the US system has. While one may go bankrupt getting that major surgery in the US, in other countries they won't even have access to that type of care.
2
Dylan Stone There are issues in other countries in someone having to wait months to get an MRI. One also have to realize how complex healthcare is. I was at a seminar recently where a biochemist was explaining how due to diseases evolving quickly cures for them are difficult to develop and surgical procedures are complex. And the country that was making the most progress on it was the US, others were contributing but very little. The problem with socialized care is that growth becomes limited, and that is the problem with socialism in general. I do agree that in the US we do go to the extreme in procedures, at the same time it is cautionary. I remembered a story of a teenage girl in the UK where they didn't do certain procedures and refused to give her a MRI for months even after seeing several doctors. After the MRI they found a tumor and she died a week later. If one can afford such care then they should be able to have access to it. Healthcare is expensive in the US, but we do have the best quality all around. We have high response times, great specialized care, and the most progress in it.
2
MsZeitgeist85 That is actually an issue in the US. If we were to go with socialized healthcare we wouldn't have enough doctors to meet up with the increased consumption as a result. In all our wait times will go up.
2
MsZeitgeist85 There are longer wait times in Canada than the US. That is what people will end up paying in with socialized care, longer wait times and lower quality. I do agree that what the AMA is doing does factor in cost, at the same time being a doctor is a highly skilled profession with a lot of responsibilities and criticism. Just creating doctors with little standards isn't great as well. We do that with teachers and we don't have very good teachers in our education system as is. Single payer is socialized care.
2
MsZeitgeist85 No, longer wait times due to lack of supply. It comes down to you can't consume what you don't produce. Due to college loans college tuition has gone up because more people have access to college now, we are also short professors to teach them which increases prices as well. There are ways to fix the US healthcare (because I am never going to claim it is perfect), but just giving it away isn't the solution. As I said, in Canada you simply won't get some forms of specialized care and their progress in healthcare advancement is far inferior than the US.
2
Dylan Stone Nice, so me knowing that we need investments in order to produce better goods and services is comparable to me believing if the earth is round or not, or evolution or gravity. Not really a sound argument.
2
Dylan Stone "No, you not believing in an economic model backed by data and the majority of economists through studies and evidence" Do you really believe that? Where do you come up with this? The majority of economists? No, the majority of economist realize that we need investment to grow. Taxes are a small part of the issue. We can have higher taxes if we had better investment. Problem is in this country we don't. Higher taxes won't work in the US and haven't work. A lot of economist agree that we need a simplified tax code and lower taxes. And you blame me for not believing certain things?
2
Dylan Stone They do invest in their company. Do you really think they will just sit on the money? No, they will invest to grow due to competition. That is why companies invest in creating better goods and services at a more affordable price. The middle class can demand a lot of goods, and they do, they demand better goods and services. Problem is that you can't buy what isn't there, you can't consume what you don't produce. If the middle class had more money but there are not any goods and services to buy than that money is worthless. That golden age of expansion saw lower government spending and lower taxes, especially compared to now. Texas is a very tax friendly state and had the second highest growing economy. Nevada is a tax friendly state and Tesla is building a plant there to pay working $25/hr. States with higher taxes don't see higher growth. NJ has some of the highest taxes in the US and is not doing well with businesses. Most economist agree, we need lower taxes and a simplified tax code. That was done in the 60s and it raised revenue. I have no clue where you get this idea that we need higher taxes. France raised their taxes and have high unemployment and little investment. The simple fact is that you can't consume what you don't produce. The government can tax the rich at 90% and give all the money to the poor and middle class, and now what? They have more money but the same amount of goods and services to purchase, that just raises prices. This country has always faced recessions, it happens. Most last around 5 years. The two times where we had the slowest recoveries were in 1929 and 2007, they corresponded to times where the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through spending and higher taxes. It took around 12 years to get out of the first and nearly 7 to possibly get out of the second. This recent one we haven't recovered from yet but there was nice growth recently. What is funny is that they both also came after we had a federal income tax. There is a correlation there. You have a lot to learn about history.
2
Dylan Stone Way to start out with a genetic fallacy. The new deal prolonged the recession. After the war spending went down lower than the level we had in the 30s during the recession. As I said, it is funny how that massive spending correlated with a time where we had the slowest recovery from a recession. Those taxes were not high also, there were several loopholes. That is why there was a tax reform bill later which lowered the tax rate. It lowered taxes but made a simpler tax code. In 1967 there were 155 Americans that made over $200,000 that paid zero income tax, one made $23 million. France is practicing austerity? Their spending is going up every year. I guess you have a different definition of austerity. As I said, money isn't the issue. If the middle class had more money it wouldn't matter if there was nothing to spend it on. We need to promote the creating of wealth. We can tax the rich very high, and people can get more money. We will have zero progress because companies will have limited resources to invest and grow. Basically the type of cell phone you have now will be the same in 10 years. You are looking at two companies in AT&T and Verizon. Haven't communications improved? It has if you look at productivity. There is more to it than just jobs. If you want jobs and money than tax the rich, give people spoons and have them build the Keystone pipeline. We will always have people working and with money. There won't be any wealth being created but we will have people working. The two worst recession happened when we had the federal government pushing more spending and higher taxes. As I said, the New Deal extended the recession. Noticed how after the war spending was cut below what it was in the 30s and we had growth? Noticed how we never had a major recession before the Federal Reserve was created? You want to criticize the stock market? It was the federal government, under Obama, that pumped $85 billion a month into it. That was giving money to the rich, sound familiar. They were giving out free money. That wasn't a tax cut but government spending. Also, you seem to be clueless on wealth. There is always wealth disparity, especially now since more people are holding off from buying a home and pulling out college loans. A person with no assets and debt and only $5 in their pocket has more wealth than 25% of the population. The average homeowner has over 60% of their wealth in their home, a homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth which is fine. Not everyone desires to run a fortune 500 company. The homeless bum outside the gas station down the block has more wealth than me because I have college loans. I have a reliable car though, my own 1 bedroom apartment, a smart phone and food everyday.
2
Looking at some of those protestors they are a little big around the waist. How about you lose some weight and live a healthier lifestyle and maybe I can take them a little more serious.
1
GothicIntellect It actually is an indication of their lifestyle. They personally don't want to do anything to help out the system. If we get socialized care they should push to help out the country by staying fit and not using it as much. Instead they just want a handout. Just like those who bitch about the min. wage being too low. They want a raise without doing anything to earn it.
1
GothicIntellect Minus some genetic factors there isn't a reason to be obese, or even that much overweight. It doesn't take much effort to eat healthier and go for a walk at times. I don't want someone who smokes taking advantage of my money. I don't smoke, I workout regularly, I care for my body more than the average person. Why should I have to pay up for someone else's mistake? I guess if I get a DUI than society should pay for it, it is the exact same thing. You can't tie the min. wage to inflation. Not everything inflates. Take black and white TVs for example, they are not worth as much now as they were in the past. Just like how certain goods have lowered in value certain jobs have as well. A local batter factory employed over 800 employees at one point in the 90s. A lot of appliances need batteries as in cordless phones and walkmans. It closed recently with around 200 employees. That is because the demand for batteries have dropped with more appliances have rechargeable batteries on board. That means those workers value dropped. Not every good and service inflates. You can't tie the min. wage to productivity. Productivity is up due to technology. Just like not every thing inflates, not every job has increased in productivity http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm That right there is a chart of unit labor cost which is hourly compensation over productivity. You see that some jobs were basically stagnate while others increased a lot. Not every job is the same. Raising the min. wage will increase those on welfare since it will make it harder to obtain a job for low skilled workers and prices will go up.
1