Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Joe Biden Lies About Medicare-For-All. Disagrees With Obama." video.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCeSQXVTpiZ95shTnSiFTyIg , the first "study" was from the Commonwealth Fund. To start, what makes that private organization relevant? They seem to be a private organization with a motive. Case in point, they admitted the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates, but in their ranking they uses amenable mortality and disability life expectancy. In their report they called disability life expectancy DLE but did not state what the acronym stood for where I had to find an outside source to find it. Careless on their part. As for their standard, amenable mortality is argued against as a standard for healthcare system quality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
And several factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. For example, two authors showed that by simply removing car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/
On the second study, again, many factors outside of healthcare influence mortality rates. We are number 1 in OECD nations of obesity where higher obesity leads to premature births and higher rates of infant mortality. Also, obesity is higher for those in poverty where those in poverty have a greater chance of unwanted pregnancies. I also talked about amenable mortality.
A major part of our poor healthcare results are due to culture, not healthcare systems. As I said, we have a higher rate of obesity. That is self inflicted due to poor lifestyle choices. And even with access to healthcare people won't change their lifestyle and still be in poor shape physically as outlined in this study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
I will have to read the last study closer, I haven't seen that one. Reality is this, healthcare is complex. It is essentially impossible to compare two developed nations side by side and claim one is better. The US does many things well. Most of our shortcomings are due to
1. Government intervention.
2. Our poor lifestyle choices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BiGG_X Right away your first link is worthless as it is saying income inequality and wealth inequality are the same. They wan't. Wealth, such as stocks and savings are not liquidated. You can't say that the top 0.1% earn 188 times as the bottom 90%. That is flawed for many reasons. A lot of the top 0.1% have their value in shares of stocks of their company. Their shares have that high of value simply because they own it. It is not liquidated assets.
The second link is where Robert Reich does not give any sources. But going through each lie
1. The poor are not job creators, business owners are. Demand is always there, you need a company to create the goods and services. Giving poor people money does not mean the goods and services will simply exist. They need to be created.
2. Comparing CEO pay to workers pay is flawed in that CEOs are paid differently to start
https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
Another is that you should compare CEO pay to the number of workers they hire. For example, if a CEO has 100 workers and the CEO earns $1,000,000, and 10 years later they have 200 workers and have 1,500,000 a year, yes the CEO was a 50% increase, but they have 100% more employees. Case in point, Walmart, if you were to take all of the money of the top 6 executives of Walmart and give it to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. So what do you gain by cutting CEO pay?
As for wage stagnation, there is a video countering that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=162s
3. We spend less educating poor kids? Really?
4. Increasing the min. wage does lead to less jobs for lower skilled workers. Reich is comparing the min. wage to all jobs. If you raise the min. wage many jobs won't be harmed as the vast majority of jobs won't don't earn the min. wage. What happens is that the jobs that get lost get lost in the statistical noise.
Link three is another Robert Reich video. Robert Reich takes advantage of useful idiots. No need to debunk another video for sake of time
Link 4: Wolff's counter argument to the current state of the economy is to look at the past 10 years. That is intellectual dishonesty. Trump's economy is has been for the past 3 years. As for the number
1. Suicide rates have been on the rise for years. We have always had low life expectancy compared to other G7 nations because we have poorer life styles such as higher obesity rates for example.
2. He is looking at income but I bet he is using CPI inflation. To start there are flaws in CPI.
https://quickonomics.com/limitations-of-the-consumer-price-index/
Also, when you factor in PCE, GDP deflator and Boskin Commission adjustment inflation wages have gone up
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23292
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13953
3. I discussed wealth already.
4. Poverty is a standard that varies.
5. Define "living better". I feel I am living better than my parents. That is subjective.
6. How are our education system producing poor results?
For the interest of time I will stop here, but you really need to give me better sources bud.
1
-
1
-
@BiGG_X , you say it is easy to cherry pick information which I find to be ironic in that Robert Reich and the other sources you are showing is doing just that. Where do you disagree on that video I linked you? You see, on most of the sources I gave you I broke down where I disagreed. It really shows who is more informed.
What was displayed here is a pure example in how, in economic issues, the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the political right bases their ideas on facts and logic. That is not to say one side is better than the other. We need facts and logic but we are human and thus have emotions. It is to say that at the core that is where each side bases their thoughts on. Take wage stagnation. Reich and you simply look at one variable, CPI inflation. In a complex economy you can't do that. That is similar to determining who is the best baseball player by only looking at stolen bases. You have to look at more stats. When you do you find out that there are a lot more stats to suggest that wages have not stagnated. Problem is the far left takes on stat, CPI inflation, and makes a strongly appeal to emotion argument with it. But on the flip side, the political left will look at all the other stats and claim that nothing is wrong. Now this is where we should meet in the middle. Yes, most of the stats show that wages have not stagnated. But does that mean everything is fine, nor that they can't get better? No. The far right approach is that things have been improving and do nothing. The far left approach is that things are terrible and push for better. The moderate approach is that things have been improving, but we can always look to get better.
If you want to help out the working American than become a moderate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1